In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Police not obligated to protect individuals

2»

Comments

  • D.K.D.K. Member Posts: 291 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Salvage and Badwrench.....Yeah the local LEOs know me
    too! My only brush with the law has been a $5.00 parking
    ticket about 20 years ago.

    The cops don't know me because I'm a bad man or fanatic.
    They know me because I've shown up at city council meetings
    and voiced objections to city plans than were unpopular with
    the majority of citizens, but were going to go ahead anyway.

    They know me because I'm the old meanie who has a prominent attorney! And I don't hesitate to sic him on those who I think need it. I've had a few LEO policies modified this way. We are not going to assign LEO vacations by how many citations have been written! We are going to do it by seniority!

    I have no * hair, and a little on top. When I do show up I wear an expensive suit that I wear only on those occasions, and drive my wife's luxury car rather than my old beat up truck that
    I will forsake only when it is pronounced dead by a certified
    mechanic. For some reason, as has been pointed out, appearance does matter? Yes, I agree, it shouldn't! Proves the system is severely flawed, doesn't it?

    I firmly believe that if somehow we do wind up in a civil war
    of some kind, it will be over more than just the second amendment.
    Several other amendments will be under dispute also.Neither will it be a tidy affair...I was a nuclear arms specialist in the military,
    whose primary duties was repairing guide missle systems. This war
    won't be a well armed government against some poorly armed radicals
    like Ruby Ridge or Waco.

    That's why one of my conserns, nightmare actually, is callateral damage. I will do everything in my power to make it a nuclear affair!
    And only a fool believes I'm the only so trained SOB who feels that way. These stupid meanies need to really think things through while they can!
  • 5thcommernist5thcommernist Member Posts: 16 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Kudos, folks! As usual, the postings on this forum are thoughtful, reasoned, and rational. With a very few exceptions, of course. As a retired cop myself, I could not agree more with your comments on how little protection the govenment can afford you, and how it is most assuredly not going to be there where you need it and most importantly, when you need it. My old department in the DC suburbs is dreadfully understaffed and overworked. I recently heard of a housebreaking-in-progress call to which an officer could not arrive until 17 hours after the fact due to lack of manpower and call volume, not to mention an idiotic policy which prevents officers from responding to an adjacent district for emergencies when all of the officers working that district are tied up on other calls for service.

    In our modern world, all of the do-gooders want us to be "safe" from anything and everything and try to legislate safety by protecting us from ourselves. Your safety is your personal responsibility. Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand, and you can't have one without the other. In their haste to make us safe, politicians create ill-considered laws whereby the "Law of Unintended Consequences" often is the unintentional amendment.

    Keep that line in the sand sharply drawn, for if you let it get crossed too many times, it gets obliterated.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin in "Historical Review of Pennsylvania" (1759)
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So, then you guys believe that it is OK for the police to disarm you in, say, a courthouse, and then have no liability in the instance that someone murders you in the courthouse, right?

    Not me. There is no such thing as a right without at least one corresponding responsibility. If you exercise your right to disarm someone on your premises, you take on the responsibility of his/her protection for as long as they are on your premises. If not, then the blood is on your hands, as well, and you are complicit to murder. Even if it is the law that did so....

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • gigmastergigmaster Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
    Hate to show my ignorance, but I didn't know about the boycott of eBay. I just bought a set of S&W grips through eBay. I don't think the guy who sold them to me knew about it either. Now I know. I wonder how many other folks don't know.

    What boycott of EBAY? I didn't know of one. I've goten lots of gun-related stuff through them.
  • JamesRKJamesRK Member Posts: 25,670 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    gigmaster, this is pretty much all I know about it.

    Posted - 11/06/2004 : 2:49:43 PM
    originally posted by Ol' Grey Ghost

    Greetings Salvage33:

    And thank you for the welcome. I saw one flaw though in your argument and I'm not here to start another but let's see if we can work through this one so we have the same position. You say the government is encurring a fiduciary responsibilty to protect us if they disarm us but the topic is that the agents of government (government does not exist outside the abstract concept in the human brain) cannot be held responsible for your protection and the just about the only people who benefit from disarming the public is usually the politicians who feel safer with their bulletproof limousines and small army of bodyguards i.e. the Kennedy's.

    But we CHL holders here in Texas like to have fun sometimes with private institutions that ban firearms on their property. It's their property and it's their right, but we still have fun. First, there are places that even a CHL holder is specifically prohibited by law to carry a firearm, one most recently popping up for my family being hospitals. My concealed handgun is a "no go" but technically I could carry a concealed assault rifle or shotgun. You can request written authorization from the director of the institution (or from the principal of a school, for that matter) and the answer is usually a "over my dead body" kind of response. You then point out that since you made the request and were denied then they are responsible for anything that may happen to you and your family that you could have prevented if you had your sidearm with you that you are obviously qualified to use. I didn't know that many veins could pop out on the human head.

    Another game for small shops is for a family member to go inside a store that has a sign banning firearms on their property. That persons picks out something expensive they want and they say they have to check with me out in the car. I go to the door and ask them to bring the item to the door so I can see it (now be really prepared to buy the item because someone in the family wants or needs it to be fair about this but it is something you can buy somewhere else). Very expensive items the proprietor will balk at my request and say come on in. I tell them they have to take the sign down because it is illegal for me to enter even if they say it's okay and the sign is left up. I've heard, "That's for the safety of our customers, sir." Well, this customer feels safer with his sidearm with him and we'll just have to shop somewhere else.

    At larger stores, if you really want or must shop there, secure your sidearm and spare magazines if you carry any in your vehicle and then walk in with your empty holster exposed (so far I don't know of any law banning someone from wearing a holster) and I'm willing to bet you will be questioned by a member of management. As with the hospital, you explain that you are qualified and licensed to carry a protective sidearm and the empty holster shows that you are complying with their wishes but you will hold them responsible if something happens that you could have prevented if carrying your sidearm.

    Now I believe first and foremost in the people's right to do and decide what is best for their private property but they do not have blanket immunity like government agents do. If they see that may be losing customers because of policies they decided upon (I believe everybody is slightly familiar with the boycott on "PayPal' and "E-bay" for their anti-gun positions) then they may rethink their policies and when they rethink how they do business they may rethink how they vote. A subtle, legal way to get the people to change their way of thinking and when the people change their way of thinking, then politicians have to adapt or become "extinct."

    Just a thought,

    Peter W. Wickham, Jr.
    AKA The Ol' Grey Ghost

    "The government that fears arms in the hands of the people should also fear the rope!"

    Font enlarged and highlighted by JamesRK
    The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
Sign In or Register to comment.