• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

WA state sheriff deputy "We have a lot of Constitutionalists" to justify MRAP use.

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I'm sorry my avitar gives you heart burn. Yes, there are a lot of anti-gun liberals in the federal government. Never said there were not. Last time I checked, Idaho has a Republican super majority on the state level. I'd say that makes the gun laws in Idaho pretty safe. Love to see a link to back your claims more criminals being shot by non LEO's. I support the second amendment and have no problem with the public's lawful use of a firearm in self defense. Never heard anyone I worked with express an opinion to the contrary.

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. [145]

http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/kdowst/competen.html

Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police

Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.


http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police did not owe a specific duty to provide police services to the plaintiffs based on the public duty doctrine.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

“According to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes. Atlanta has the worst response time with 11 to 12 minutes and Nashville comes in at a lightning speed of 9 minutes.

The Department of Justice, with their statistical prowess, reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour.”


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/mike-mcdaniel/reflection-self-defense-police/
 
Last edited:

StanSwitek

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
64
Location
Star, Idaho
Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. [145]

http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/kdowst/competen.html

Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting. I will read the entire article when time permits.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
You will have to excuse me, this is a gun rights website. Shame on me for thinking that was what you were speaking of? I do not support any unconstitutional laws.

I didn't ask if you'd support unconstitutional laws. I asked if you would enforce unconstitutional laws, being that you are a member of Miami's Vice division.
 

StanSwitek

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
64
Location
Star, Idaho
Sooooo you support supposed reasonable restrictions that SCOTUS says is constitutional?

If the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the constitutionality of a law, that's as legal as it gets. That is their job. To interpret the constitution. While I may not personally agree with every decision they make, that is the way things work in the USA.

Sorry, I'm not going to deal in vague generalities while you try to play "gotcha."
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
If the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the constitutionality of a law, that's as legal as it gets. That is their job. To interpret the constitution. While I may not personally agree with every decision they make, that is the way things work in the USA.

Sorry, I'm not going to deal in vague generalities while you try to play "gotcha."

I spoke in no such "vague generalities," you just dodged an obviously poignant question.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
If the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the constitutionality of a law, that's as legal as it gets. That is their job. To interpret the constitution. While I may not personally agree with every decision they make, that is the way things work in the USA.

Sorry, I'm not going to deal in vague generalities while you try to play "gotcha."

You do know the words of the second amendment you claim to support?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
If the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the constitutionality of a law, that's as legal as it gets. That is their job. To interpret the constitution. While I may not personally agree with every decision they make, that is the way things work in the USA.

Sorry, I'm not going to deal in vague generalities while you try to play "gotcha."

From Wiki
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. For only the second time in its history the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[4]
 

StanSwitek

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
64
Location
Star, Idaho
IOW if a gun confiscation is ordered and upheld by the justices he would consider it legal.

IF my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. That will NEVER happen. Any attempt to enforce that would result in civil war. No one I know in state county or municipal law enforcement would support or comply with that.
 

StanSwitek

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
64
Location
Star, Idaho
Do you support any restriction on the right of free people to keep and bear arms? Further have YOU or would YOU enforce these "reasonable" restrictions?

Yes I do support "reasonable" restrictions. I do not think mentally ill people, convicted felons or drug addicts should be allowed to possess guns.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Wow, I don't think the mentally ill, convicted felons or drug addicts should have guns. Yeah, I'm a "gun grabber." You got me there <snicker>

If they are a danger to society they do not belong on the street, if they are free, they are free. I much rather you be honest than to try to blow smoke.
 
Last edited:

StanSwitek

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
64
Location
Star, Idaho
If they are a danger to society they do not belong on the street, if they are free, they are free. I much rather you be honest than to try to blow smoke.

That shows a complete lack of understanding if you think it is ok for the people I described to have guns. History is not on your side.
 
Top