Gun Ban - Sparks Fly

[kronckew]

Molon Labe!

_______________________________________________________________
CAVE CANEM ET SEMPER PARATUS
Dic, hospes Spartae nos te hic vidisse iacentes,
Dum sanctis patriae legibus obsequimur

If they don't want me to eat animals - why do they make them out of MEAT?

 

[ibear]

I think it also has to do with the urban versus rural mindset. Some things in the urban mindset are good: respect for differences, people working together for a common goal, respect for the environment. Some things in rural areas are good, self reliance, helping your neighbor, appreciation of nature.

If we could just keep the best of both and avoid the worst we'd be sh*tt*ng in high cotton :thumbup:

Yeah!!!!..... that high cotton is a real treat, isn't it? Damn, where's the toilet paper?

Your point certainly has merit..... based as it is, on common sense. Yes, I appreciate common sense! After all, if our law says we are responsible for our own self defense, because legally, nobody else, but ourselves, is legally responsible.... why wouldn't we all want to follow the law?

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order. -- (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

Discrimination in providing protection against private violence could of course violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But that is not alleged here. All that is alleged is a failure to protect Miss Bowers and others like her from a dangerous madman, and as the State of Illinois has no federal constitutional duty to provide such protection its failure to do so is not actionable under section 1983.

There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life without due process of law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05 (5th Cir. 1961).

There's no 'right' to be protected from criminals, terrorists or their destructive conduct.

Common sense is a wonderful thing!

iBear

 

[ibear]

Molon Labe!

_______________________________________________________________
CAVE CANEM ET SEMPER PARATUS
Dic, hospes Spartae nos te hic vidisse iacentes,
Dum sanctis patriae legibus obsequimur

If they don't want me to eat animals - why do they make them out of MEAT?

Smart! Definitely smart!
Thanks,

iBear

 

[ibear]

This one's got me wondering if some of our mates in the UK can confirm or deny something for me.
I heard the other day that the British government was considering a ban of points on kitchen knives. Seriously, under the ban, anything larger than a paring knife would not be allowed to have a sharp point, or else it would become an "illegal weapon".
Looks to me that, through a succession of weapons bans, the British government is looking for a return to the simple innocence of "sticks and stones".
One of the very few lobbying groups in England that have successfully held on to their weapons, are the various living history organizations that conduct mock combat using live steel weapons that have been "rebated" (edges and points rounded off). To them I can only say Pactum Serva (keep faith) mates :thumbup:

Sarge

The U.K. Government has decided that only they are responsible for the protection of each of its citizens. Because they have failed so completely and so thoroughly, they have to blame the private citizen, for their own inadequacies! Their lack of common sense, dictates that illogical blame is placed on the individual citizen, by insisting that the individual must retreat from attack and avoid all unlawful intrusions in their own residence, regardless of the circumstances... because it is the responsibility of the police to wield deadly force.... never the individual!

For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.

Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

Did you know that in England self-defense of person or property is regarded as an antisocial act, and that a victim who injures or kills an assailant is likely to be treated with more severity than the assailant?

"Government created a hapless, passive citizenry, then took upon itself the impossible task of protecting it. Its failure could not be more flagrant." - Joyce Lee Malcolm
Thanks,

iBear

 

[ibear]

I hope you're not misunderstanding me...I'd like to see Feinswine disappear into the ether never to return. I think that personal responsiblity has disappeared from out society (by and large) and that's a bad thing. I KNOW that I can't count on anyone else to keep my family and me safe, so I have every intention of providing for our security. I'm pretty much a 'cold, dead hands', Molon Labe kinda guy. My guns have killed fewer people than Teddy Kennedy's Olds (or was it a Buick?)....guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

"The law is abundantly clear. Police have no duty to protect an individual from harm ... Each person is responsible for their own safety and protection from criminal harm, and for the safety and protection of their dependents." - John Brophy, author of "The Law Abiding Individual and Personal Protection".

NaWWWW, I get the picture.... and even if I was misunderstanding you, your message is clear enough to follow the signs you left.... to the logical conclusion. - iBear

The Supreme Court decided in a 1989 Wisconsin case that government agencies have no constitutional duty to protect people from harm caused by the actions of other private citizens. That comes as a surprise to some people, and it certainly does not mean police departments and others shouldn't try. If they fail, however, they are not violating anybody's civil rights. – Rocky Mountain News

"Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there.

Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, (1975) 46 Cal.App. 3d 6.

Without fanfare, falderall, parades or public notice, and for the most part, without our knowledge, "We the people" have been legally appointed as "protectors and enforcers" of the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and legal defenders of ourselves! This is the real truth of the "self defense" issue, in a nutshell! Yes, it is a personal responsibility.

The right to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness, as written by Thomas Jefferson, in The Declaration of Independence, is enforced only by us, for ourselves and by ourselves.

Certainly, if we follow the law, our courts are supposed to back us up. Our local Police will show up..... in time, and pick up the pieces. But, they are not legally required to do anything at all. They do not even have to show up, even if they know that a crime will be committed or that a crime is now in progress. They can legally watch it happen and ignore the victim.

Thanks,

iBear