Would anyone care to respond to this letter?

imported post

http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article/guns_guns_guns_everywhere_guns/19243/

imported post

here's my response - let's see if the moderator approves it.

The belief that there are people 'assigned to protect us' is sadly mistaken.

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that "there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against criminals or madmen. The Constitution does not require Federal or State government to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."

As recently as 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual, even if that person has a restraining order against the person who did them harm! The police only have a duty to maintain public order. The case was Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278.

The only person responsible for your safety is you. Firearms shift the balance of power for self protection because when seconds count - the police are minutes away.

imported post

.

imported post

I was just getting ready to post that. Good catch.

imported post

I sent in my comment early this AM. I wonder how long it takes to get them reviewed.

imported post

I replied with the following:

"Mr. Suren, you state "For centuries man has felt obligated to protect his family and property."

You are correct and must agree that this obligation to protect family and property pre-existed our 2nd Amendment.

I am a husband and father and am fully cognizant of my obligation to protect my family.

Fire alarms and seatbelts offer protection from fires and automotive accidents. Firearms are the most effective protection against criminals.

As men we must never forget...when seconds count, police are only minutes away."

imported post

Here is my reply:

You wrote: "Can you imagine being in a restaurant and hearing a shot being fired, accidentally or otherwise? Can you imagine the panic and fear? Why should we be subjected to such a possibility?"

This is a question you should ask Dr. Suzanna Hupp. She was in the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Tx, when a madman drove his truck through the doors and then started killing all the people he could. She didn't have her gun in the restaurant with her because it was against Texas law, so she had left it in her car (legally). Dr. Hupp, had she been able to carry her gun, could have possible saved the lives of some of the 24 people who were MASSACRED, maybe even saved her mother and father who were killed. She managed to escape, and went on to change the law so that law abiding citizens would have a chance to not know the panic and fear of being sitting ducks in a shooting gallery. The fear and panic that is induced by guns, is almost always induced by a criminal with a gun. And it is best stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun.

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Here is my reply:

You wrote: "Can you imagine being in a restaurant and hearing a shot being fired, accidentally or otherwise? Can you imagine the panic and fear? Why should we be subjected to such a possibility?"

This is a question you should ask Dr. Suzanna Hupp. She was in the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Tx, when a madman drove his truck through the doors and then started killing all the people he could. She didn't have her gun in the restaurant with her because it was against Texas law, so she had left it in her car (legally). Dr. Hupp, had she been able to carry her gun, could have possible saved the lives of some of the 24 people who were MASSACRED, maybe even saved her mother and father who were killed. She managed to escape, and went on to change the law so that law abiding citizens would have a chance to not know the panic and fear of being sitting ducks in a shooting gallery. The fear and panic that is induced by guns, is almost always induced by a criminal with a gun. And it is best stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun.

Click to expand...

Good reply!

As were the others. Good job, guys.

imported post

lprgcFrank wrote:

here's my response - let's see if the moderator approves it.

The belief that there are people 'assigned to protect us' is sadly mistaken.

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that "there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against criminals or madmen. The Constitution does not require Federal or State government to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."

As recently as 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual, even if that person has a restraining order against the person who did them harm! The police only have a duty to maintain public order. The case was Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278.

The only person responsible for your safety is you. Firearms shift the balance of power for self protection because when seconds count - the police are minutes away.

Click to expand...

+1 Your comments are now posted!

imported post

And mine:

So let’s look at the rationale here.

The police, the FBI, and the politicians are supposed to protect us.

Exactly how do you propose that they do this? Are we to have a police state, or government funded body guards?

All of the above merely respond AFTER a crime has been committed.

And your ‘wild west’ argument is untrue and very tiresome. For all of the years in all of the stats where law abidng citizens have been allowed to defend themselves wherever they have a right to be, exactly where can you point to where the wild west exists?

And where can you point to where shots have been accidentally fired in a restaurant?

One set of anti-self defense folks point to the high rate of violence as a reason to disarm honest citizens, and you point to those whose obligation it is to protect us, so we should delegate that responsibility to them. How do you possibly reconcile the two?

All you have is your “can you imagines” to support your position, even in the face of conflicting reality.

One does not need to imagine what happens in a country where citizens are disarmed. The skyrocketing crimes in, post-disarmament countries of England and Australia are there for all to see, except for those who are willingly blind.

Given the FACT that armed citizens have not created the havoc you imagine, the FACT that the state can only respond to a crime AFTER it has occurred, and the FACT that many, many honest folks are attacked outside of their property, I fail to understand your position.

I respect your right to have your feelings and your overactive imagination, but I have no obligation to modify my behaviour or rights to accommodate them. And if I do, how do you propose to respect MY feelings of retaining the ability to protect my loved ones everywhere we may be, in the face of the reality of the violence that truly exists?

imported post

My two cents:

"Wild west, huh? There are over 150,000 concealed permit holders in Virginia. Show me wild west. Hasn’t happened. Now I’m not a doomsday adventist; I don’t huddle in my basement with a can of green beans waiting for the end, nor do I protest and march in the streets. I have a real job. But I think that waiting for the FBI to fastrope from the trees while my fiance is being abducted by knifepoint is one of those things I can put in my Book of Stupid Things That Educated People Say. What you’re saying is, “I HOPE no bad men will notice me.” “I HOPE no crazies decide to go on a killing spree in the middle of my filet mignon.” Well, continue hoping. And I pray the day never comes when you realize hope is a terrible strategy. And if it does, I HOPE I’m around to help you. But, much like the police and FBI, I don’t have an obligation to. "

imported post

This reminds me of the elderly guy I was talking to yesterday who opined that economic downturns and unemployment would lead to people robbing "us". I pointed out that it would be HIM, not me. His response was that he tried to keep as little money as possible at home. I found that quite mind boggling and mentioned to him that a home invader might: a. not take kindly to him not having "enough" money, or b. not BELIEVE that he didn't have more money, or c. "convince" him and his ATM card to go for a ride to the bank.

Being in an uncharacteristically kind mood, I DIDN'T mention that if somebody was willing to rob him, they might be willing to torture his mentally handicapped daughter in front of him in order to pry more money out of him, or just for fun.

It always baffles me when somebody who was an adult during WWII can't get it through their heads that there are truly EVIL people in the world who have NO self-imposed limits on their behavior. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think that if people are willing to help kill millions ofinnocents for essentially minimum wage, they'll kill TWO to get a few thousand out oftheir checking account.

imported post

Glock27Bill wrote:

And mine:

snip

Given the FACT that armed citizens have not created the havoc you imagine, the FACT that the state can only respond to a crime AFTER it has occurred, and the FACT that many, many honest folks are attacked outside of their property, I fail to understand your position.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but some armed citizens have been the cause.

I think you meant LAACs (Law Abiding Armed Citizens are a subset of Armed Citizens.)

Just my .02

imported post

I stopped reading that article at "wild west era".