Posted on 11/06/2018 5:15:03 AM PST by deandg99
Obviously. And just as obviously, you hold the Constitution, and the very concept of limited government, in contempt.
Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. Nor a car, or access to pyrotechnics, or work with children in a one on one situation.
Wow ... that's a quite remarkable list powers you want to unconstitutionally grant to Big Daddy Government. We've seen where that ends up ... the bloody XX Century provides entirely too many examples.
Nothing will happen to these cops or the accusers. Not one thing.
Nothing will happen to these cops or the accusers. Not one thing.
Probably not the whole story here....
I am in my late 60’s now, and I have never answered the door to police officers with a gun in hand. Have you?
I ALWAYS answer the front door....with a pistol within reach.
The back door too...but my dogs prolly got that covered....
“It’s not rhetorical. The complaint must be certified by a professional.”
Interesting. I didn’t know that.
For perspective, the United States has 4.3% of the world’s population. And according to Business insider, the chances historically of being assaulted by a gunman is 1 in 315 people. The population of the US is a little over 317 million people. That’s an historical determined estimate of over a million people being accosted by guns in the US every year. Think everyone should have a gun just because the constitution says it’s legal?
As for cars, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), there were 34,439 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2016 alone in which 37,461 deaths occurred. This resulted in 11.6 deaths per 100,000 people. Think everyone should own a car?
According to The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), there are over 900,000 sex offenders that are registered in the US at the national level and all states have their registrations. And according to World Atlas, “the problem of sexually-oriented crime has ballooned to alarming proportions in the U.S. in recent years. According to one study, it is estimated that, on average, 300,000 women are victims of rape every year, while victims other sexual offenses total around 3.7 million annually. In addition, 900,000 children are criminally mistreated every year, with 9% being sexually abused. While the total number of registered sexual offenders across the U.S. is 747,408 per a recent estimate, there is wide variation in the populations of such criminals between states. California has the dubious distinction of having the greatest number of sexual offenders of any states, with Texas and Michigan close on its heels.
Guess not everyone should work with children.
And each one of the entries above, again, is just the ones they know about.
So what is the problem, since there is so much of it, of taking the guns away from a man, based upon evidence provided to a court, that he/she is dangerous and needs investigating? At what time he/she is found innocent, he will get them back and an opportunity to have his second day in court? Ever heard of better safe than sorry? And Willis pulled a gun on an armed cop. He sound safe or possibly insane to you? We don’t know. So let’s neutralize him and find out. And that is what the law is for.
rwood
“I ALWAYS answer the front door....with a pistol within reach.”
On cops? You live in a bad neighborhood. If it’s that unsafe you have to be armed all the time, to include the approach of police, maybe you need to consider moving. If it’s that bad, your gun won’t stop them from breaking in and killing you and your dogs or shooting you through a window and getting in anyway. You will become a statistic, that’s all. I try not to live in places like that so I don’t need to arm myself constantly. (Even for police)
rwood
“I ALWAYS answer the front door....with a pistol within reach.”
On cops? You live in a bad neighborhood. If it’s that unsafe you have to be armed all the time, to include the approach of police, maybe you need to consider moving. If it’s that bad, your gun won’t stop them from breaking in and killing you and your dogs or shooting you through a window and getting in anyway. You will become a statistic, that’s all. I try not to live in places like that so I don’t need to arm myself constantly. (Even for police)
rwood
You sum your post up as follows:
We don’t know. So let’s neutralize him and find out. And that is what the law is for.
We don't know, so let's dump on a citizen with the full force of the law? Make him prove his innocence? REALLY???
Not here. Not in America. Take your government tyranny and shove it.
The law is for punishing criminals, not harassing the law-abiding.
What you say is true and used to be. However , this is now and that was then. Once we were governed, now we are ruled. A free people cannot be ruled,but they can be governed. Our Founding Fathers understood that. They served in government [Congress or lesser offices]for a while and returned to their farms and businesses. They were Citizen Politicians. Then came the Professional Politicians. Their sole ambition was to rule others, using the power of the Government as their club. The Citizens became less willing to solve their problems, turning and looking instead to the Government for solutions. Those in Government immediately complied and begun enacting laws solve those problems. So, here we are.
I know most of the LEO's around here.
You need to realize many people live in the country...with no houses around for miles.
I've been a jackass a time or two.....
Seems I ain't the only one.
My, aren’t we getting personal. If you want to be a cop and approach a house with a guy in it that has been in question as to his mental or personal capacity to use a weapon, you just jump in there.
You don’t know anything about me to call my thoughts tyranny. I went through huts in ‘Nam in the late sixties, and through many different types of dwellings in Iraq and the surrounding area in the eighties, and all others in between. And we went through with weapons ready. I’ve done that and did for them for 32 years.
“We don’t know, so let’s dump on a citizen with the full force of the law?
Did you read the article? His weapon fired first and caused one of the police officers to open up. The article doesn’t say if he still had possession of the gun or what his status was at the time he was shot by the other officer. So no, we don’t know. We only know he drew a weapon on two police officers trying to full fill a court order by removing his immediate capacity to harm himself or someone else until the accusations can be proven false.
And it was not being done in a forceful action as they have done many prior servings to this without any force. It was not an arrest, and they were not going to detain him. He changed the rules when he got his gun and caused a round to be chambered and discharged. And I would say this supports the decision by the court that he may be dangerous with a weapon available.
“Make him prove his innocence? REALLY???”
Isn’t that what happens in any case in our courts? It appears there is a question as to his safety placed there not by law enforcement, but by relatives or health professionals. And there was enough evidence to take an action to protect him and others.
And how many people have to get killed if that action can’t be taken to prevent something from happening to himself or against innocent people with a guy that for no reason other than a foolish act or thought process decided to use a weapon rather than take care of it peacefully.
“The law is for punishing criminals, not harassing the law-abiding.”
The law by the definition of Black’s Law Dictionary, the most used law book in the US, is: 1. that which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions coexist or follow each other. 2. A system of principles and rules of human conduct, being the aggregate of those commandments and principles which are either prescribed or recognized by the gov- erning power in an organized jural society as its will in relation to the conduct of the members of such society, and which it undertakes to maintain and sanction and to use as the criteria of the actions of such members. “Law” is a solemn expression of legislative will. It orders and permits and forbids. It announces rewards and punishments. Its provisions generally relate not to solitary or singular cases, but to what passes in the ordinary course of affairs. 3. A rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a, state.
There is nothing in there that determines the guilt or innocence of a person. So the only act of the court was to protect. And this guy apparently needed it and chose to ignore the possibilities.
And in the future, if you want to have a discussion with people, it might be wise to stick to facts and not your unproven or legally shared opinion. And calling me a name like treasonous falls right into that situation. You lose the credibility of your discussion and you create a desire not to further discuss any issue with you. Have a good life.
rwood
I think we all have. But if you can’t feel safe without having to have a weapon readily available placed specifically for personal protection at all times, that place couldn’t by a good one to live and, more important, raise a family in. So country or city, in that scenario, it’s the same thing.
rwood
2) Me: “Make him prove his innocence? REALLY???” Thee: "Isn’t that what happens in any case in our courts?" NO, that is not what happens in any case in our courts. The State attempts to prove someone's guilt. An acquittal only requires that the jury find that the State did not prove its case. What ... didn't you know that?
3) I read the article. The uniformed agents of a tyrannical government showed up at his door uninvited and attempted to relieve him of his property, even though he had committed no crime. I guess some folks are content to let the government prosecute "pre-crimes" ... it's fer da chillruns, doncha know ... A plague upon them!
Have I ever pulled a gun on anyone. Nope. Hope I never have to....
Let me tell you something...I see your heels are dug in.
I raised a family in the country and we always felt safe. And we weren't HELPLESS....if something would come up.
You...on the other hand seem helpless.........if you can't defend yourself.
You will have the last word..........
Bull’s-eye.
Thank you for the last word as you put it. I was raised on a ranch the first 10 years of my life and was doing the work of a man like plowing, irrigating, pruning, and laying raisin trays. I also hunted quail and dove on the property as in the late 40’s early 50’s everyone was cordial but not intrusive. We had migrant picking teams on the ranch at certain times of the year and we were wary of them and protected ourselves as needed.
And you told me enough about yourself by saying “Have I ever pulled a gun on anyone. Nope. Hope I never have to....” that unless someone attacks you or your family, you don’t sound like one who would cap someone for a difference of opinion or a surmised threat like Willis who drew down on two armed cops and was killed for the act. And that legitimizes the court’s concern about his ability to act in a civilized manner and not be a danger.
The thought process that the removal of a weapon from the hands of a questionably dangerous man until investigated is no different that when the left got down on Trump for wishing to hold out certain people coming from certain places in the world to our shores. Obama did the same thing and it was never designed to be permanent, either. Just to make sure we were safe by keeping out problem people. I don’t know if they are a problem or not. But they could be and I don’t want them here so I have to tangle with them or have our countrymen/women killed.
It’s the same with the “caravan” coming up from Central American. Are they not criminals or thieves? So in this case, they are neither innocent or guilty. They are just questionable. But they are breaking the law if they try forcing their way in. So that answer is already there.
Thank you for being civil and trying for discussion rather than insults. Makes for a better learning process. Good life to you.
rwood
I suggest raiding a home at 5am is guaranteed to cause extreme anxiety in the occupants.
No red flag response should ever be at any time other than daytime. Well there never should be a red flag response of any kind but this unconstitutional attempt at law should at least be carried out with some common sense.
How can that be when the very idea is contrary to any common sense.
I think I have arrived at an impasse.
The door must never be answered under any conditions when red flag law is the reason. Have a lawyer, church official, and two trustworthy neighbors on notice you will call if the situation warrants, (no pun intended) and it will always warrant.
The NRA really doesn’t comprehend “shall not be infringed”.
That statement is worth a huge A M E N !
True since 1877. The NRA has been around for every egregious law passed by the Congress attempting to abuse and misuse “Shall not be infringed”. In most cases they and their supporters have been what might be called part of the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.