Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Judge Says Citizens Need To Buy Guns To Protect Themselves

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Judge Says Citizens Need To Buy Guns To Protect Themselves
    January 28, 2009

    General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon on Wednesday told a female home invasion victim she needs to buy a gun to protect herself.

    "There should be a law that law abiding citizens with no felony convictions should own a gun," the judge said while setting bond for Colton Dobbins.

    Judge Moon told Danielle Walker, "I know many fine police officers. But we can't depend on the police to protect us any more."

    He said Chattanooga is the 57th most dangerous city in the country, and to many criminals "the value of human life means nothing to them."

    The judge said, "With 7,000 foreclosures every day and 6,000 kids dropping out of school" that the crime situation is going to get much worse.


    He told the 18-year-old Dobbins he is "lucky to be alive" after barging into the home of Ms. Walker.

    Judge Moon said, "If it had been my house you came in on, you would have wound up at Coulter Funeral Home."

    Dobbins was charged with forcing his way into Ms. Walker's home where she and her nine-year-old son live. Ms. Walker said Dobbins knocked her to the floor, then two other men entered her home.

    Ms. Walker said, "I was afraid for my son."


    http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_143550.asp

    -- John D.


    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  2. #2
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    Give that man a promotion!

    ETA: Removed quote (unnecessary)

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Need more judges like this one.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Give this judge a big hand....we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.

  5. #5
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    I wish that Judge never loses his elected position. This country needs more of his kind!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Common Sense from the Bench!!!! Whutta Concept!:celebrate

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    Give this judge a big hand....we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.
    +1

  8. #8
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    Give this judge a big hand....we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.
    No we don't, it is totally unneccesary. That would change a right and turn it into arequirement. I don't support that idea. Less government intervention the better and wouldclearly bea violation of the tenth amendment.

    While I respect the advice from the judge to the victim and the opinion of the need for a law, it is not his place to campaign for laws, nor is it a law we need in the first place. She is perfectly capable of going out and buying her own gun,learning to use it, carry it, and potentiallyuse it in self-defense without such a law.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    Give this judge a big hand....we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.
    No we don't, it is totally unneccesary. That would change a right and turn it into arequirement. I don't support that idea. Less government intervention the better and wouldclearly bea violation of the tenth amendment.

    While I respect the advice from the judge to the victim and the opinion of the need for a law, it is not his place to campaign for laws, nor is it a law we need in the first place. She is perfectly capable of going out and buying her own gun,learning to use it, carry it, and potentiallyuse it in self-defense without such a law.
    Unless she belongs to the Brady bunch or some such group. In which case, she would probably rather die than buysomething so "evil" as a gun. Face it, such a law is the only way to once and for all knock those idiots out the park.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Southern, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    we do need a law that requires the citizens to own a firearm and learn how to use it properly.
    It would be nice for every citizen to own a firearm, butI would be against any such law.

    Maybe free orrelativelycheapgov. sponsored handgun training and then a Gov. sponsored firearm purchase discount?...Yea right, I know!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    The Right would still exist. A 'requirement' would apply universally based upon some needs of the state. As in the old cry: "To Arms!" It was understood that the populace was already armed... they just requirethose capableto show up. (as in the War of 1812)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    The Right would still exist. A 'requirement' would apply universally based upon some needs of the state. As in the old cry: "To Arms!" It was understood that the populace was already armed... they just requirethose capableto show up. (as in the War of 1812)
    Requiring the exercising of a right nullifies it as such. It would be no different if we were forced to vote or forced to assemble against our will. It is a violation of the tenth amendment for the government to pass any such law. And back to the OP,I think it is dangerous for those that interpret and apply our laws to be campaigning for issues that are solelylegislative matters.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  13. #13
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    I think it is dangerous for those that interpret and apply our laws to be campaigning for issues that are solelylegislative matters.
    Bah. If they can do it, so can we.

    http://fishorman.blogspot.com/2005/1...-decision.html




  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    The Right would still exist. A 'requirement' would apply universally based upon some needs of the state. As in the old cry: "To Arms!" It was understood that the populace was already armed... they just requirethose capableto show up. (as in the War of 1812)
    Requiring the exercising of a right nullifies it as such. It would be no different if we were forced to vote or forced to assemble against our will. It is a violation of the tenth amendment for the government to pass any such law. And back to the OP,I think it is dangerous for those that interpret and apply our laws to be campaigning for issues that are solelylegislative matters.
    The police do it every day against the citizens by making up laws as they go along.....

    I think we should give this judge a BIG thumbs up for having the guts to actually say something like this, because the police can't protect you and they have no legal obligation to do so. See
    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Dec. 21, 1981).

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    The Right would still exist. A 'requirement' would apply universally based upon some needs of the state. As in the old cry: "To Arms!" It was understood that the populace was already armed... they just requirethose capableto show up. (as in the War of 1812)
    The "requirement" would not even be based upon some perceived need of a state--but upon the needs of the citizenry to be armed and trained to defend themselves against violent attack--and by "trained" I am talking CQB such as would occur in homes, room clearing procedures as would occur if you walked in on a break-in, as well as tactics such as firing on the move, firing from cover and shoot/no shoot situations as well as stress management....both with a handgun, as well as with a shotgun/long gun, and then begin running the scenarios in a "mockup" of a home and do so with live ammunition and card board targets, in daylight and low light conditions where a flash light would also be a requirement.

    the only downside to something like this would be the time required to become even half way proficient and the need for continued training in order to keep firing skills and decision making ability sharp, as well as the money which would be invested in obtaining the training.


    a well armed/well trained population is a safer population.


  16. #16
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    The police do it every day against the citizens by making up laws as they go along.....

    I think we should give this judge a BIG thumbs up for having the guts to actually say something like this, because the police can't protect you and they have no legal obligation to do so. See
    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Dec. 21, 1981).
    And your point is what?

    Are you condoning this activity? Police are essentially agents of government and it is not OK for them to make up the law as they go.

    A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    The police do it every day against the citizens by making up laws as they go along.....

    I think we should give this judge a BIG thumbs up for having the guts to actually say something like this, because the police can't protect you and they have no legal obligation to do so. See
    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Dec. 21, 1981).
    And your point is what?

    The point is that the police legislate from behind a badge every day, when they try to find a reason to arrest you, or go around looking for reasons to stop you, and the saddest thing is--the majority of people would simply stand by and accept the misconduct and never make an attempt to hold the offending officers accountable. However, when a judge dares to sit behind a bench and encourage us to exercise our rights by telling us what we already know--we get indignant about it. Should he have done it--no, but he only told us what we already know--that the police cannot protect us and that they have NO duty to do so...

    Are you condoning this activity? Police are essentially agents of government and it is not OK for them to make up the law as they go.

    I think you misread my post: I meant that NO it is not ok for the police to legislate to us and make up laws as they go along, but they do and it is a sad fact of life in this country; and their unlawful and improper conduct will continue until the people grow some backbone and put a stop to it through litigation, through complaints, through initiating investigations into their conduct, through criminal complaints when LEOs blatantly assault the citizens, or use violence against them and through advocating for and pushing for stricter controls on the actions of law enforcement and for an independent review of complaints against them. The people have to take the necessary steps to tell the government NO, this conduct is not proper and we, through whom you receive your authortity are not going to tolerate it, and we expect you to bring your agents under tighter controls...For the record, I am a VERY vociferous advocate for placing tighter and more restrictive controls upon the conduct and the authority of the police and for holding them criminally and financially accountable for their misconduct.


    A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.


    The problem is--judges like to use their positions to advocate their personal positions.

    so on that I agree with you. The Judicial branch can just as easily strip us of our rights as a state or federal legislature can.


  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.
    I agree. How many times have some of us said, "There aught to be a law against being that good looking." Or, "There aught to be a law making everybodyhave to work for a living."

  19. #19
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.
    I agree. How many times have some of us said, "There aught to be a law against being that good looking." Or, "There aught to be a law making everybodyhave to work for a living."
    I don't disagree. However, he is perfectly within is authority to state his opinion. Judge's do it all the time (read my first post). I just happen to like that this judge's opinion is pro gun.

    Again, thumbs up al juez (judge)!!!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.
    I agree. How many times have some of us said, "There aught to be a law against being that good looking." Or, "There aught to be a law making everybodyhave to work for a living."
    Personally I have always said that "there aught to be a law that makes it a felony to be a politician or a lobbyist"

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    diesel556 wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    A judge commenting on the need for laws is a personal opinion and shouldn't hold anymore weight than any of our opinions. The Judicial Branch of government should shy away from legislative matters, IMO.
    I agree. How many times have some of us said, "There aught to be a law against being that good looking." Or, "There aught to be a law making everybodyhave to work for a living."
    I don't disagree. However, he is perfectly within is authority to state his opinion. Judge's do it all the time (read my first post). I just happen to like that this judge's opinion is pro gun.

    Again, thumbs up al juez (judge)!!!
    I like this pro-gun judge too...what we need is a Supreme Court whose judges are all pro-second amendment.

    But I also understand the need for the judiciary to not use their positions for advocacy for or against certain positions. But at the same time I just can't help but say way to go your honor for having the backbone to say this.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    I understand what all of you are trying to say and I also like the fact that we have a judge that is pro-gun. However, what he was advocating was another law, not exercising aright as was previously metioned. We don't need another law forcing the exercising of our rights. That is my main point.


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •