Draconian gun laws may prevent your grandma from protecting herself

The Daily Sentinel ^ | May 15, 2008 | Rick Wagner

[neverdem]

Rick Wagner offers more thoughts on politics on his blog, The War on Wrong, which can be reached through the blogs entry at GJSentinel.com.

[TexasRepublic]

a frail, 98-pound grandmother is slammed into the wall by a burly police officer, handcuffed and dragged from her home

No pit in Hell is deep enough or hot enough for brutish thugs like that. I can't publicly state how I feed after reading that, but it is a prime example to show why 2nd Amendment rights are needed to allow individuals to protect themselves from rogue elements or an organized police state.

[TexasRepublic]

correction: "how I feel"

I'm so worked up that I shouldn't be typing right now.

[FortWorthPatriot]

I agree 100% with you.

But I still wanna know how you feed after reading that. :)

[FortWorthPatriot]

Dang, I was hoping to get my smartaleck comment in before you corrected it!!

[Niteranger68]

Unfortunately, too many LEO’s will have to lose their life before citizen’s 2A rights are properly recognized. It’s real easy for a police chief to say their officer made a mistake in judgment, but how will that sound when the mistake cost the officer his life? The bottom line is that we are not adequately protected against the overzealousness of some LEO’s. Think about this, if you are walking down the street and an officer comes up and starts whooping your ass, do you have the right of self-defense? Do you even have the right to resist the attack?

[YOUGOTIT]

That is the way it has become. They can kill you or beat you and their is nothing We The People can do as it is the same as the SS and KGB.

[YOUGOTIT]

“do you have the right of self-defense? Do you even have the right to resist the attack?”

NO. We do not have any rights and they can kill you or beat you and nothing will be done as they will LIE every time.

[Brilliant]

“It’s not often you watch a video where a frail, 98-pound grandmother is slammed into the wall by a burly police officer, handcuffed and dragged from her home — all because she refused to surrender her firearm and leave her home.”

Where are the “we’ve got too many people in prison liberals” on this? And if they are opposed to it, then why did they enact the idiot laws to begin with?

[piytar]

Didn’t the NO police chief come out after the consent decree and say that he would ignore it and confiscate citizens’ firearms again?

[Gilbo_3]

do you have the right of self-defense? Do you even have the right to resist the attack?

Sure you do, but will it be recognised by tyrants, hell no...

like you said, the only way to enforce our rights will be by fighting back...

[Filo]

Think about this, if you are walking down the street and an officer comes up and starts whooping your ass, do you have the right of self-defense? Do you even have the right to resist the attack?

You have the right and, IMO, the obligation.

Unfortunately the police, the state and the rest of the jack-boots don't recognize those particular rights.

That's because the police consider themselves to be above the law.

To date, the courts appear to agree.

[neverdem]

Didn’t the NO police chief come out after the consent decree and say that he would ignore it and confiscate citizens’ firearms again?

IIRC, that's correct. I wish I had the quote.

[TalonDJ]

This leads us to our grandmother, Patricia Konie, who was being filmed by a television crew explaining her decision to try and remain in her home and holding a rather antique looking revolver by the cylinder. We then see a large police officer lunge into the frame, slam her against the wall and take her into custody.

I would have shot him. Right then and there. No uniform in the universe should protect someone who treats citizens breaking no law in this way. None.

[neverdem]

That is the way it has become. They can kill you or beat you and their is nothing We The People can do as it is the same as the SS and KGB.

We have the war on drugs by and large to thank for that. The police have been taken to task from time to time, usually when they are caught on their own videotape.

[Oldpuppymax]

I wonder if this is one of the offficers who stole Cadillacs from a local dealer in order to have something to drive around NO in order to enforce the law?

[Lurker]

To date, the courts appear to agree.

SCOTUS has already decided otherwise.

See US v. Cruikshank.

L

[Filo]

SCOTUS has already decided otherwise.

See US v. Cruikshank.

I don't see how that applies. As stated before, the police are above the law. They are not citizens. A roving band of criminals can be convicted, the police rarely if ever are.

[Lurker]

Au contraire my good Filo.

The Court specifically held that the Enforcement Act did not apply to private individuals, but rather only State actors.

L

[Filo]

The Court specifically held that the Enforcement Act did not apply to private individuals, but rather only State actors.

Okay, maybe I'm just having a dense day, but how does this protect us from the police when they do wrong (such as when they attack us in our homes for spurious reasons, etc?)

This SCOTUS case may offer us some basic protection and The Constitution clearly does, but how does this prevent the cops in question from lying their way into a justification? How does it prevent the courts from believing their lies or siding with them even if they know they are lying?

The police cannot be trusted and the courts cannot be trusted to protect us from the police. The referenced video is just one such example. There are volumes of others.