Gun Control

What in the world are you on? That has nothing to do with this discussion. That doesn't have anything to do with the police or guns. It was a case about due process of law. In this country, we often allow the guilty to keep rights when we can't prove their crimes. We often allow parents to keep children when it goes against our common sense because we can't prove abuse and in the hope that the person will straighten up. This case involved suscpicions of abuse, but nothing was proved till too late.
 
The men and women fighting with Houston where Americans my friend. Perhaps not US citizens but Americans all the same.
 
I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement guys. But I do value your arguments.

However, under no circumstances will I yield any of my rights or freedoms to the government. They were never the governments to give, I was born with them, they are mine and I'll take them to my grave. Sooner or later it makes no difference.
 
If they were Americans fighting in a country that wasn't theirs, that had it's own constitution... that makes them insurgents at best terrorists at worst.

They didn't rush to become part of America... but they didn't stand a chance as the Republic of Texas. This is how they ended up the 28th state in the union.

Hardly the sort of people the American government would be putting up with these days. Last I checked they shipped these sort off to Gitmo indefinitely.
 
The hypocracy is very evident isn't it. By todays standards, all of the founders of this country would be in Gitmo. So I suppose I'll see you all from Gitmo. If the founders were radical and subversive than label me as such.
 
LOL!
Please don't martyr yourself on account of this thread.
I'd rather you didn't drip red, white and blue all over the carpet.

Sweet Jesus could you get any more melodramatic?
 
He's agreeing with you Slip. As a true libertarian, M4H hates his own government more than anybody.
 
Its not my government. Its the government. This goes back to the fallacy that is the idea of the nation state. The nation (the people) are not the state and shouldn't consider themselves as such. It is a lie perpetrated upon society that has a person feel responsible for the actions of this oligarchy. In the US, the average man/woman can never ascend to the position of president or even senator. These lofty positions are reserved for those who are part of the ruling class.

Without many millions of dollars, see how far your election campaign would go. We have created a ruling class in this country like it or not.
 
You are taking it out of context.



While it does say theat the state is not required to protect you, it is really talking about the limitations of the state in terms of what actions it can take so as to not avoid due process. Yes, sometimes that means the innocent will be hurt and even killed. But I think that is better than the abuses that would surely follow, particularly in messy divorces such as this case.
 
Then wouldn't you say that if the state can't protect the innocent, that it is the responsibility of the people to protect themselves? Or should we just let these people fall through the cracks as a price we shall have to pay to live in this society? I would rather live with the costs of gun ownership as opposed to the costs of such a system. That way, when a meth addict who feels no pain is intent on beating me to death I have some recourse other than a 911 call that may or may not be answered in time.

Also, this case has set a precedent that the states have been very willing to abuse. An internet search will yeild a wealth of other cases that stem from this.



Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department.

California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

If they can't be held accountable who can be? I would say that only the citizen is accountable for his/her own safety. Thus taking a defensive weapon away from a law abiding citizen is unjust. Especially when prohibition has been shown throughout history to be a failure. Criminals will still have guns.

I think I've made all the points that need to be made and frankly I'm tired and need to get some work done.

Have a great day all.
 
It is always the individual's responsibility to protect themselves. Always.

Basically the case has provided a precedent that you can't blame the state if they chose to uphold due process and they followed the law. Is that bad?
 
Martialist4Hire for president! I don't agree 100% with all your points (I think Texas is irrelevant), but on the 2A and the dangers of a protector/overseer style government, you're dead on. I'm a complete extremist on the 2A though I don't voice my true beliefs often for fear (probably justified) others will discount every argument I make on the issue simply because they see me as crazy or whatever regardless of the evidence/arguments I back up my own beliefs with.

Opening up another can here, politically, I'm a true conservative. I think what people do is their own damn business as long as it is not harming others. I think people should be allowed to be as dumb as the like so long as they are not harming others; I also think if they hurt themselves being idiots, that's their own damn fault, and if they haven't gotten medical insurance, well then at least they most likely won't live long enough to breed anymore. It is the government's job to maintain the sovereignty of the nation, protect from outside threats, and provide basic services that it would be more efficient or the only entity able to provide (such as a road system). And I think if I want to walk down the street with a machine gun, that's my own damn business. Punish me swiftly and harshly if I threaten or attempt to harm anyone with it. If not, leave me alone.
 
You don't think that people seeing you walk down the street with a machine gun will affect others? If I see someone doing that, I am going to vacate the street and head elsewhere post haste. So what gives you the right to influence my behavior and plans in that manner?
 
If it were common place as it was before modern gun control laws, there would be no need to react in such a way. Do you run now when you see a cop with a pistol on his hip or a soldier carrying his weapon? I am a soldier, and it's amazing to me how much differently people respond to me knowing I'm carrying when I'm in uniform. I am no different whether wearing the uniform or civilian clothes. It's just a sense of security. The threat is no different.
 
Back
Top