- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
As long as there is due process.
and severe penalties for those who use this for harassment
As long as there is due process.
wanting to defend yourself is normal and healthy. Carrying around a gun to so do is misguided and offer more danger than it does protection.
Just facts.
Please provide citations for those "facts".
Do you think that AR-15s have a legitimate sport and hunting use, or do you feel that they are only useful for mass murders? If someone feels that they are only useful for mass murders, is it a stretch for them to believe that any who owns a gun whose only use is to kill lots of people in a short time is a danger to others?
Maybe. Maybe not. One thing's for sure: an unarmed person has zero chance of defending himself. I'll take me chances as an armed citizen, not a defensless victim.
that's dishonest nonsense. When I was being mugged-that was a bad situation. Having a gun made it better for me-I stopped a violent attack by shooting one of the two muggers. And in all honesty, it made the situation better for the two muggers.
that is a really stupid generalization. and you are incorrect.
Please provide citations for those "facts".
Irrelevant. Because the press has killed millions throughout history. False reporting by the media caused the Rwanda genocide.
easily found, don't be so lazy. If others do your work for you, you never learn. (Just like you teacher told you)
So the muggers did not have guns.... LOL
Kinda shoots the argument that all the criminal can get guns, even when they are all outlawed.
OH, and I need a link to your shooting story.
The language of the constitution is very precise and consistent. In both the main body and the amendments (including the 2nd), “people” always refers to individuals.
The collective entities (groups) are the “states” and federal government which are also specifically referred to, so when the word state is used it means a state, not “the state” as we would use today which might also mean the federal government.
The word “right” in the constitution always refers to individuals. Governmental entities never have any “rights”, they have “powers”.
The founders were “natural scientists” and believed that “rights” derived from god or nature, and were possessed by individuals. States or governments were artificial entities and therefore could not possess rights, but could voluntarily (consent of the governed) be granted “powers” by the people to accomplish social or collective goals such as justice or defense or building a road. — Harold Piskiel
Strict Constitutionalist, huh?
14th Amendment - “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Citizens are entitled to be protected from others who may harm them.
The 2nd amendment is about regulating a militia. It says nothing else really.
Is this reasonable “nut control”, or an infringement on the rights of gun owners?
Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity since Parkland shooting
Red flag laws violate due process and are unconstitutional. If somebody is deemed a threat they should be seized and then put through due process. Seizing any guns they might own beforehand violates their rights.
It's your claim, you stop being lazy. I provide support for my clsims, I suggest you do the same.
Edit: your "facts" aren't facts. It's impossible to prove something that doesn't exist.
Show me in Castle Rock v Gonzales where it says, or implies, the local pd had no responsibility to protect it's citizens. All I see is refusal to allow a lawsuit for failing to enforce a restraining order. It does not address the local pd’s responsibility to protect.From what, exactly, and by whom? Castle Rock v Gonzales and other SCOTUS decisions affirm that the State has no responsibility to protect any one citizen.
Edit: are you claiming that this phrase gives the State the right to ignore other rights in that protection?
Show me in Castle Rock v Gonzales where it says, or implies, the local pd had no responsibility to protect it's citizens. All I see is refusal to allow a lawsuit for failing to enforce a restraining order. It does not address the local pd’s responsibility to protect.
The state has a responsibility to provide for the safety of all its citizens. Including from each other.
Have you seen any of the “red flag” laws struck down? Why do you think they haven’t been?
Keep your head in the ground, what do I care.
Choose to view propaganda as fact, what do I care.
Trump needs you folks because not a reasoned person alive supports him.
Again, nowhere in the courts decision did it state or imply that Gonzales was not entitled to the same usual protections enjoyed by all other citizens . Only that the pd was not required to intervene, in the case of the restraining order, until it was violated."Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband"
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia
"No. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Gonzales had no constitutionally-protected property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order, and therefore could not claim that the police had violated her right to due process. In order to have a "property interest" in a benefit as abstract as enforcement of a restraining order, the Court ruled, Gonzales would have needed a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to the benefit. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia found that state law did not entitle the holder of a restraining order to any specific mandatory action by the police. Instead, restraining orders only provide grounds for arresting the subject of the order. The specific action to be taken is up to the discretion of the police. The Court stated that "This is not the sort of 'entitlement' out of which a property interest is created." The Court concluded that since "Colorado has not created such an entitlement," Gonzales had no property interest and the Due Process Clause was therefore inapplicable. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented."
{{meta.fullTitle}}
CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES
Again, nowhere in the courts decision did it state or imply that Gonzales was not entitled to the same usual protections enjoyed by all other citizens . Only that the pd was not required to intervene, in the case of the restraining order, until it was violated.
The order has absolutely nothing to do with the pd’s obligation to provide a safe environment for citizens.
You still haven’t addressed why “red flag” laws, which are being adopted by more and more states, haven’t been struck down.
No, it is not a given that pd’s have no responsibility to protect an individual citizen. Saying so is completely nonsensical and contradictory to every police department’s primary role.Equal protection under the law doesn't mean that every citizen is totally protected. Only that every citizen is entitled to the protection as everyone else. Given that PD's have no responsibility to protect an individual citizen, Gonzales was offered equal protection.
Interpretation isn’t necessary. It means just what it says. Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. I’m entitled live my life free from harm by another. If someone reasonably presents a threat (as judged by courts), temporarily removing their access to firearms is the right thing to do. If you want to argue about “due process” rights, join a lawsuit. For now, red laws stand, and as long as they are implemented properly, this gun owner is happy about that.Given this statement: "14th Amendment - “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Citizens are entitled to be protected from others who may harm them."
Are you claiming that this phrase gives the State the right to ignore other rights in that protection? IOW, what powers do you believe this statement gives the State.
No, it is not a given that pd’s have no responsibility to protect an individual citizen. Saying so is completely nonsensical and contradictory to every police department’s primary role.
Interpretation isn’t necessary. It means just what it says. Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. I’m entitled live my life free from harm by another. If someone reasonably presents a threat (as judged by courts), temporarily removing their access to firearms is the right thing to do. If you want to argue about “due process” rights, join a lawsuit. For now, red laws stand, and as long as they are implemented properly, this gun owner is happy about that.
This is not Rwanda. You also stated there were no laws. That was a lie.