Reaper Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 when i was in england on a school trip the only people i saw with guns were the cops and the royal guards with the big furry hats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DangBruhY Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 A LOT of people say, "I Don't give a flock! If they are in my house, I'm going to shoot them, unarmed or not!"YYYYYYEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHh....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 As far as giving me a proper education, yeah not so much. You are the last person that I would look to for an education. I prefer to learn from people who are actually intellegent.Quoted for hilarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 when i was in england on a school trip the only people i saw with guns were the cops and the royal guards with the big furry hatsI love that picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 (edited) england is different ,you can't own gun there.even the olympic shooters have to go practice to other countrys .the police dont carry guns there either.wasnt there a video posted here about that? all guns, even hunting rifles and shotguns have now been made illegal and gun crimes have gone up some 30% and the po-po have to carry guns and wear armor for the first time in their history? also, was that last sentence a run-on? anyway, sorry to the factseekers, i have nothing but my own memory to cite....eh, i did the work...its youtube and an unidentifiable report, but.......wait, have i been conditioned to provide citations AND explain myself?fcuk this place! Edited March 29, 2009 by jhaag citation, explanation and realization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 Well that was a fun and interesting read. Sure people here would love to ban "all" gun but we aren't England or Australia. Folks here won't just give up their right to self defense. Hell read up on the supreme court case of Gonzalez v. Castle Rock. The police have no duty to protect you. It's is your job to protect yourself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonzie Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 Moar fear! And the Gravedigger plucks another one from obscurity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 (edited) Well that was a fun and interesting read. Sure people here would love to ban "all" gun but we aren't England or Australia. Folks here won't just give up their right to self defense. Hell read up on the supreme court case of Gonzalez v. Castle Rock. The police have no duty to protect you. It's is your job to protect yourself.There's no Federal or Constitutional right to self defense which is why things like Castle Laws and CCW fall to the States.That finding doesn't mean police have no duty to protect you. You might want to go back to read it. Edited September 21, 2010 by fusion Theirs, their's, theres, there's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 I've read it. There was a restraining order in place. She called the police for protection and the police, at their discretion, did nothing.Conclusion: No. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Gonzales had no constitutionally-protected property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order, and therefore could not claim that the police had violated her right to due process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 (edited) On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters' abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.The next morning, Simon committed "suicide by cop." He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon's pickup truck.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.htmlAND just throwing this out there, it is 100% impossible to be 100% protected by the police. Even inmates in prison get beat up or killed. Edited September 21, 2010 by chevysoldier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 You might actually want to read the decision written by the Justices and how restraining orders in Colorado are (were?) treated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 Are you referring to Jessica Gonzales v. United States of America? If so I just now found out about it, but don't have time to read up on it right now. The original ruling may have been overturned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 Are you referring to Jessica Gonzales v. United States of America? If so I just now found out about it, but don't have time to read up on it right now. The original ruling may have been overturned?No they reinstated the original courts dismissal. Basically the decision was 7-2, because Colorado law doesn't make arrests mandatory for restraining order violations and treats them more like steps in a process rather than enforceable by police action. This case never had anything to do with people's claims that the police have no duty to protect you. It had everything to do with Colorado's crappy restraining order laws.Moar fear, blah, blah, blah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 So what was the original point of her getting the restraining order? She called them for protection and they did nothing. Her kids died and the police get off on a technicality because their laws are/were jacked up? Why have a restraining order in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 So what was the original point of her getting the restraining order? She called them for protection and they did nothing. Her kids died and the police get off on a technicality because their laws are/were jacked up? Why have a restraining order in the first place?Exactly and I don't think Colorado is unique in this from other stories I've heard. Not a technicality it's how their law is written. In some cases restraining order violations aren't always meant to be protection orders that automatically result in arrest, just a matter of a process that could end up in a warrant or summons or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 I don't think Colorado is the only one. We all know there are many jacked up laws out there. But my first layer of protection is myself and that is the only one that I trust to be there when I need it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 I don't think Colorado is the only one. We all know there are many jacked up laws out there. But my first layer of protection is myself and that is the only one that I trust to be there when I need it.I also take this approach and try to make sure my family at least have some sense of being able to defend themselves both armed and unarmed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.