Police protection v Concealed carry

Police protection v Concealed carry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

UncleNasty -> Police protection v Concealed carry (12/30/2008 10:53:51 PM)
I came across this article from 1992 earlier today. I found it interesting the lengths to which our police and courts will go to deny any responsiblity for protecting us lowly citizens. Equally so the lengths they will go to protect their own form anything resembling accountability to their constituentcy. Perhaps the most compelling argument I've seen for self protection. But then I'm a real pushover for anything with legal cites. Uncle Nasty (still on the mend)

Emperor1956 -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/30/2008 10:56:54 PM)
Hard to read or reply when the OP forgets to post a link to whatever he thought was interesting.

UncleNasty -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/30/2008 11:16:38 PM)
Shit. This is at least the second time I've done this. Apologies offered. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html Uncle Nasty (still on the mend)

stef -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/30/2008 11:32:10 PM)
The key part of the ruling in Warren vs. District of Columbia is this: *[It is a] fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.* Oddly enough, this has come up a couple of times here already. Specifically, here and here. ~stef

Termyn8or -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 6:23:02 AM)
Skimmed it, I think I read it years ago. As rarely as I do this in a serious thread, I am going to mention a joke. Guy notices people breaking into his shed/garage/whatever, calls the police and they told him noone was available. He waited a couple minutes and called back and said "Never mind I shot them". Within two minutes there were nine cars, a helicopter, a SWAT team and dogs. They caught the perps I guess and ask the guy "I thought you said you shot them" to which he replied "I thought you said noone is available". So this joke could actually be a true story. I doubt it but it could be. And unfortunately it illustrates just how hard they come down on those who actually DO defend themselves. I have known for years that they want to perpetuate crime, it keeps them in business. There is good money in cops and robbers. Might I suggest an old movie entitled "The Palermo Connection" which is a quite serious work with Jim Belushi in the leading role. "To protect and serve", I think the last part was left out. To protect and serve whom ? If anyone thought that politicians want to take the guns so the people would be safer, how is the weather on Mars ? They want to take the guns away so they can be safe. If you think they care about us, that oceanfront property in Belin, NM might remind you of Mars. Might be nice, really. 1. No defending yourself. 2. We will not defend you. 3. Crime happens. 4. A need is percieved. 5. The need is never met. Comes close to the description of an addiction doesn't it ? T

Crush -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 7:43:51 AM)
I know several FBI agents and we talked about this issue once. One said it simply: "We aren't the Secret Service and you aren't the President."

MasterG2kTR -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 9:46:24 AM)
I love it !!! Definitely gotta remember this one if I ever have such a need. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Guy notices people breaking into his shed/garage/whatever, calls the police and they told him noone was available. He waited a couple minutes and called back and said "Never mind I shot them". Within two minutes there were nine cars, a helicopter, a SWAT team and dogs. They caught the perps I guess and ask the guy "I thought you said you shot them" to which he replied "I thought you said noone is available".

popeye1250 -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 10:02:59 AM)
Term, good post, I think you nailed it. Nasty, I like Vermont's gun laws and I believe neighboring New Hampshire is moving in that direction too. Why do you need a "permit" to excercise a right? We don't need "permits" or "lisenses" to vote. In many cases the States are overstepping their limitations by "requiring" "permits" or "lisenses" to carry firearms. What if Mississipi again started requiring "permits" or "lisenses" to vote? The police rarely "prevent" crimes especially violent crimes against people. They usually show up after the fact. When I go to the gun range to practice I'm glad when I see women there. That's one less woman who'll be a "victim." The police "prioritize" their responses. But, even if you're a top priority call it's still going to take 3 to 10 minutes for a response. We've called the police here for non-resident kids swimming in the pool at night and it usually takes a half hour or more to get one cruiser here. The police shouldn't have a problem with people being proactive. No-one's "trying to do their job for them" by getting involved especially when a situation calls for immediate action and they're 10 minutes away.

PanthersMom -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 10:48:51 AM)
when i was a kid i was home babysitting the other kids in the family and someone tried to break in the side door. grabbing my dad's service revolver i stood at the top of the steps and warned whoever it was that i would kill whoever opened the door. it put an end to the immediate situation, but it definitely formed my opinion as far as a citizen's right to carry a gun and defend him/herself in a situation where calling the police might be the dumbest thing one could do. do you ask the person who just invaded your home to wait a moment while you call the police to see if anyone's free to come to your aid? i have been armed and willing to kill a few times in my life, always defending the lives of those i love. i was taught that one never picks up a gun without understanding that doing so means i am going to kill someone in defense of my life or the lives of others. what, i'm going to take a survey when some jackass busts a door open? "and what is your intention mr criminal?" my dad was a cop for 32 years, i've heard alot of stuff most people never hear. calling the police is a reaction to a crime having been committed. defending your life is what you do during the crime. it has gotten to the point where it's us against them. the crooks have the weapons, does that mean law abiding citizens should allow themselves to be victimized? police protection is a myth folks. i'm afraid with the economic times we're facing the crime rates will get worse, not better. concealed carry may become the order of the day in many areas. might make someone think twice about robbing a person if they're walking around with the outline of a shoulder holster under their coat. what's that famous line? " do you feel lucky punk" ? PM

hardbodysub -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 11:25:25 AM)
quote: We don't need "permits" or "lisenses" to vote. But we do need to be registered.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 11:37:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardbodysub quote: We don't need "permits" or "lisenses" to vote. But we do need to be registered. Yeah - that way they've got a convenient list of whose door to break down First when they go to round up dissenters and potential trouble makers.......

sujuguete -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 11:56:00 AM)
It's an old, trite saying, but it is true: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. As the article points out, there are not enough police officers to protect each and every one of us 24/7. We cannot expect the police to be our personal bodyguards. It only makes sense that we should do what we can to protect ourselves. I was so glad to see the decision in the DC vs. Heller case, and hope it allows more honest, law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for self-defense.

Sanity -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 12:17:55 PM)
Good posting PanthersMom. If the public isn't allowed to bear arms then the strongest among us would be "more equal" and the weakest would have to do whatever a gang or a rogue cop or what some musclebound idiot says they must do, without exception. Women are especially vulnerable... but firearms make us all equal, and any thugs out there have to think long and hard before trying to victimize people in an armed society. In an armed society you can only be a victim if you allow yourself to be a victim. In an unarmed society there is no choice, you become a victim when others who are more physically powerful or who are numerically superior decides that you will.

Lorr47 -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 12:38:42 PM)
quote: Guy notices people breaking into his shed/garage/whatever, calls the police and they told him noone was available. He waited a couple minutes and called back and said "Never mind I shot them". Within two minutes there were nine cars, a helicopter, a SWAT team and dogs. They caught the perps I guess and ask the guy "I thought you said you shot them" to which he replied "I thought you said noone is available". Unfortunately that is the way it is today.

variation30 -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 12:56:14 PM)
colt cobra (.38), ruger sp101 (.357), and a super shorty. I'm fine...but I still want to pick up a fal whenever I get the extra money.

bratnwranglers -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 1:17:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sujuguete It's an old, trite saying, but it is true: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. As the article points out, there are not enough police officers to protect each and every one of us 24/7. We cannot expect the police to be our personal bodyguards. It only makes sense that we should do what we can to protect ourselves. I was so glad to see the decision in the DC vs. Heller case, and hope it allows more honest, law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for self-defense. i completely agree, in fact where i grew up, there was one on duty sheriff for the entire county..mostly rural, but actually a high number of break-in's and things like that...until those robbers started getting shot at by the owners.... buuut, i don't have much faith in them, someone set our barn on fire 2 years ago, we called the police and fire (we are completely surrounded by woods, caught fire in the summer, it was dry), neither one could find our address and both stopped looking because they thought it was a prank...although...the large smoke cloud should of been a clue...we had to go find them and bring them to the address (and there was yellow and black reflectors with our address on it)...... needless to say, they got there about 45 minutes too late and it burned to the ground along with several trees. so i don't hold much faith in the police response.....heh

rulemylife -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 1:30:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Good posting PanthersMom. If the public isn't allowed to bear arms then the strongest among us would be "more equal" and the weakest would have to do whatever a gang or a rogue cop or what some musclebound idiot says they must do, without exception. Women are especially vulnerable... but firearms make us all equal, and any thugs out there have to think long and hard before trying to victimize people in an armed society. In an armed society you can only be a victim if you allow yourself to be a victim. In an unarmed society there is no choice, you become a victim when others who are more physically powerful or who are numerically superior decides that you will. So carrying a gun evens your odds. Except, I guess, if the person you are trying to even your odds against has more firepower than you, or if the numerically superior gang all have guns.

Sanity -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 1:35:35 PM)
Any gang would be playing a form of roulette trying to take someone who had a gun, regardless of how well they were armed. One person, even a petite woman, has a chance with a firearm vs. a gang. Without the firearm, she would have virtually no chance. None. Firearms make everyone equal.

rulemylife -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 1:52:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Any gang would be playing a form of roulette trying to take someone who had a gun, regardless of how well they were armed. One person, even a petite woman, has a chance with a firearm vs. a gang. Without the firearm, she would have virtually no chance. None. Firearms make everyone equal. You're not addressing the question I asked. How does a woman with a gun become equal to a gang who all have guns? Isn't that the same situation as if both she and the gang were unarmed?

Sanity -> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry (12/31/2008 2:01:40 PM)
I addressed your question, but I'll be glad to rephrase my answer for you. If all are armed, there's a chance she may well kill one or two of them, possibly even all of them. If none of them were armed, she would have little or no chance at all.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875