The Liberal Gun Club Forum

You would think that anyone that has suffered through the public school system would know that “the authorities” are not there to protect you. Duh. These kids might just wake up to the fact that they aren’t as privileged as they think they are.

Expecting not to be shot while in school isn't a privilege, it's a right.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:24 am Expecting not to be shot while in school isn't a privilege, it's a right.

You can argue one has the right to expect something will or will not happen, given expectation is merely one's belief and has no bearing on reality. You have the right to expect to win the lottery, for example, even though that expectation is unrealistic.

DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:30 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:24 am Expecting not to be shot while in school isn't a privilege, it's a right.

You can argue one has the right to expect something will or will not happen, given expectation is merely one's belief and has no bearing on reality. You have the right to expect to win the lottery, for example, even though that expectation is unrealistic.

So you think NOT being shot to death, whether randomly or not, is a privilege, not a right? Therefore, since government has an obligation to respect, defend, and honor your rights, it therefore has ZERO obligation to work to keep you from getting shot to death (since not getting shot isn't, in your POV, a right)?

Pollack has deep pockets but ultimately the state court ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed against Peterson will likely be reversed.

Peterson’s lawyer, Michael Piper, said he would appeal the ruling.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:24 am Expecting not to be shot while in school isn't a privilege, it's a right.

Not to be pretty but can you provide a link to us Constitution amendment which grants you a right not to be shot?
Govt has no obligation to protect you ,your safety is your responsibility cops are there to collect info and put the best efforts in finding those who are responsible
Now what is the best effort is were vague as there is no way to quantify such effort

Not to be too much of an ass, but it's supposed to be incorporated into the 2nd Amendment (or the 9th coupled with the propositions if the whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. I'm allowed to defend myself. Therefore, if you refuse to allow me to do it personally (or if I'm too young to exercise that right), "you" (i.e., those who stand in the shoes of my parents when I'm at school) should be responsible for exercising it for me.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:38 am

DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:30 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:24 am Expecting not to be shot while in school isn't a privilege, it's a right.

You can argue one has the right to expect something will or will not happen, given expectation is merely one's belief and has no bearing on reality. You have the right to expect to win the lottery, for example, even though that expectation is unrealistic.

So you think NOT being shot to death, whether randomly or not, is a privilege, not a right?

Not being gunned down in the street like a dog for nothing by the state is, per the Declaration of Independence, an inalienable right. Were it specifically in the constitution it would be a constitutional right. I never stated it was a "privilege," and all the caps-lock fever in the world can't change that fact.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:38 amTherefore, since government has an obligation to respect, defend, and honor your rights,...

Government has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution, in which limits on its power with respect to rights are codified.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:38 am...it therefore has ZERO obligation to work to keep you from getting shot to death (since not getting shot isn't, in your POV, a right)?

Among civil authorities, police have no obligation to protect life per the D.C. Court of Appeals in the Warren v. D.C. decision. SCOTUS ruled similarly in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. If you don't like it, you can take it up with those courts.

You're missing my key point, which Mikeinmich picks up on:
If the government takes your right to defend yourself, it therefore is derelict if it won't then protect you.

I think it should be take up in the courts again.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:09 pm You're missing my key point, which Mikeinmich picks up on:
If the government takes your right to defend yourself, it therefore is derelict if it won't then protect you.

I think it should be take up in the courts again.

I'd say if the government takes your right to defend yourself, then it's derelict in defending your rights, regardless of whether or not it protects you.

Eris wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:44 pm I'd say if the government takes your right to defend yourself, then it's derelict in defending your rights, regardless of whether or not it protects you.

True, dat. Eris for president.

Eris wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:44 pm

YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:09 pm You're missing my key point, which Mikeinmich picks up on:
If the government takes your right to defend yourself, it therefore is derelict if it won't then protect you.

I think it should be take up in the courts again.

I'd say if the government takes your right to defend yourself, then it's derelict in defending your rights, regardless of whether or not it protects you.

You'd think the NRA would be on top of this and it's videos would be screaming it. Gun laws make the anti-gunners feel comfortable while living in condition "white" where everything is perfect and police will always protect you and yours.

Bowers v DeVito has been case law since the 80's.

How does ANY of this surprise ANYONE at this point?

They
Have
No
Duty
To
Protect
Us

I know it's hard to hear and harder to comprehend but no one is responsible for defending me but me. It's a convoluted scary mess but my take on it is simple - I am responsible for my own defense. If kids are not safe in schools we need to figure out why that is (the system, our society, our culture, our government, is cracking kids and making them want to kill everything someone else loves) and then take appropriate steps to solve that problem and make kids safe.

If we want people trained and willing to use deadly force and walk into a gun fight in the school halls they need to hire a gunslinger/soldiers/professional body guards and not "rent -a-cop" who is not trained nor specifically inclined by profession and personal attributes to run towards the sound of gunfire. I know this upsets folks but cops are, by and large, just people earning a living, working for food, and wage slaves like the rest of US. We might wish/believe they are super human and that they took the job and the gun and the badge and therefor are beholden to society and their employer to lay down their lives but when it comes to Death and a gunfight it Does. Not. Work. That. Way.

It doesn't. I wish I could hire guys with my tax dollars to protect me and my family but I cannot do that. Going home tonight to my family and protecting my Life is my responsibility and it's why I am armed and trained. You have a better chance of counting on me to save your kid but I'm not allowed into a school with a pistol. Even if I'm working across the street and hear screams and gunfire I'd be afraid if I intervened I'd be crucified. Mostly by Liberals...I work as a field service tech and a lot of my travels takes me to school gymnasiums (can't carry) and city council chambers (can't carry) and universities (can't carry) and if I'm there and the shit hits the fan I can't do as Sensei VooDoo does and protect those who cannot deal with combat, Death, and gunfire. I have been disarmed and the hall monitor/cop?

Has no obligation to save anyone or risk his Life. I would but cannot - he could but might not.

What a fucking world.

VooDoo

Amen, VooDoo.

So many people forget that "rights" are by definition chained to "responsibility" and no amount of "la la la I can't hear you" changes that.

The political right have twisted "self reliance and self responsibility" to mean "how much public money can I use to pad my bank account" while most on the left still believe everything they don't want to do is already outsourced and therefore not their problem.

Schools in this country are a mess - they're building the broken kids, and that's public and private and even universities. One one hand, the system requires stronger defenses to maintain the appearance of safety. On the other, maintaining the system is the problem. Crud.

ErikO wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:26 pm Bowers v DeVito has been case law since the 80's.

How does ANY of this surprise ANYONE at this point?

They
Have
No
Duty
To
Protect
Us

In 2005 Scotus made clear cops have no obligation to protect you

This guy was seasoned cop not some rent a cop aka meat with heart beat
Cops are like everyone else sll they want is to come to work clock in do bare minimum ( roam interweb while at work) clock out and go home alive and well.

hondo2K0 wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:01 pm This guy was seasoned cop not some rent a cop aka meat with heart beat
Cops are like everyone else sll they want is to come to work clock in do bare minimum ( roam interweb while at work) clock out and go home alive and well.

As we saw from the video up thread, the security guard actually stopped a 3V1 attack. To be fair, the wanna-be-robbers brought the fight to the guard, so there's that...

As I said meat with heart beat
But I respect security guard for his actions

hondo2K0 wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:18 am As I said meat with heart beat
But I respect security guard for his actions

That 'meat' not only had a heart beat, but real heart. And a fast draw and good aim. And movement. And enough training to put it all together. And enough conviction to not duck or run. It's pretty much the polar opposite of the subject HRO.

Good for him

People forget police comes from word policing which originally meant to pick up to collect
Therefore policing translate to gather fact or react on somebody else action

Don't forget the security guard who got murdered by cops for doing his job.

This is what an officer/hero looks like. Despite the fact that he was killed by "friendly fire" he still put himself at risk, and died, doing what he was SWORN to do: Protect and Serve.
The SCOTUS ruling seems to extend beyond the ability of a Police Dept to allocate resources as best it can, though that seems to be the heart of their decision.

Nope he was sworn to protect US and state of California Constitution .
Protect and serve is a slogan nor cops are servants nor bodyguard s