Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
odd. I thought the motto of most police depts was 'Serve and Protect'.
Sure. It is but that doesn't mean it is correct. Don't get me wrong, I am a big supporter of LEO. However, they can not be with you all the time. Therefore it is your own duty to protect yourself.
(1) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."
(7) Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
(8) Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
(9) New York Times, Washington DC, "Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone" by LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005, "The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
Just because the Law does not need to protect us as individuals does not mean we are free of danger. I believe it is the responsibility of ALL individuals to provide protection for each other and to be sufficiently armed to carry out this duty. We all should be carrying firearms as well as being aware, alert and able to defend others as well as ourselves.
I do not believe in registration of any weapon or any permit system. If I decide to carry a weapon it is my responsibility to know when and how to use that weapon. I am also responsible for any damage done with the weapon however I have a right to do that damage, up to and including killing, to stop an assault.
I do not support gun control, outside of being able to select and hit a target with the first shot, by government for any reason. If they will not take the responsibility for protecting me they have no say in how I protect myself.
The police serve us when requested and protect us when they see something happening... Of course they can't see everything... If one wants protection from someone else, hire a bodyguard...
Yeah, back in the mid 80's I mentioned that 'To Serve and Protect' on the phone too. I was calling for assistance. The POLICE Dispatcher told me that this saying doesn't mean the Police are your personal body guards.
The next thing the dispatcher heard was the BOOM of my shot gun. The next words he heard was, come get your bad guy.
1) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."
(7) Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
(8) Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
(9) New York Times, Washington DC, "Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone" by LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005, "The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
Thanks and a Tip O'the Stetsonâ„¢ to NHForester for the references !
Their ideas are very left, and the attraction to NH is the smaller size and the lesser people.
Hmmm... I'm kind of curious what your idea of left is. Putting aside certain subcliques like the mutualist (and a few anarcho-communists who went along for the ride - they are harmless), their position on most issues is essentially the free market position. People don't generally consider that a leftist position, when framed in those terms.
Their position on certain "social issues," while it might loosely be called liberal in common usage of the term, is still nonetheless a free market position, and if free marketeering is leftism, then praise the Capitalists, the promoters of "leftism."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz
It got a little heated, when the particular Freedom seekers I was conversing with turned out to be anti gun.
... I got a bad first impression
Putting aside perhaps the rare statistical outlier, I can tell you as a person who signed up with the FSP almost from its inception.... having attended almost every summer festival they hold every year (where open carry is conspicuously approved of).... having lived there..... being familiar with many members, including some of the more "notorious" ones (read: Keeniacs and anarchists)..... that they are pro gun rights, through-and-through. And not namby-pamby NRA fake "lip service" gun rights, either.
It's entirely possible that what you ran across was one of the utilitarian pacifists. There are a few of them, and they are very vocal about it, and I derogatorily refer to them as a cult, because that specific clique very much is a cult.. and I know exactly who the ringleaders of that circus are, but I don't want to air that dirty laundry here... it's "internal" stuff. This clique is vocal, but quite small.
I don't know what the substance of your conversation was, but if you were talking about defending yourself from abusive government, that may raise hackles amongst certain cult members. Certain members of this clique have drunk the Kool Aid one too many times such that their mantra has become "force [even defensive force] only begets more violence." They believe that is one of the greatest truisms of life, and even though they don't deontologically oppose the use of defensive force, they offer the utilitarian rationalization that you should just run away and not use force when confronted with a problem, lest you perpetuate the so-called "circle of violence."
They definitely are not opposed to gun ownership, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz
These Free Staters should go Free Caliwagg O' Fornia. II hear it's bright warm and sunny there most of the time.
Why would you want them to go away?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz
They'ld like it there better than here where it's 18% gray most of the time, pretty wet, and REAL COLD
Oddly enough, when the FSP first formed during the first year, there were epic debates on what the ideal state should be. Talk of the weather definitely occupied a bit of attention, especially from those who hailed from warmer climates. But ultimately, they decided freedom > cold weather.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 02-26-2011 at 12:49 AM..
Anarchists are a threat to the FS movement, imo. There is a big difference between limited gov't. and anarchy. Effects of anarchy inevitably invite regulation, etc. to right things that have gone wrong, then we are back to the problem of big government.
But just exactly where do you limit it, what do you limit it to, and how do you perpetuate the limits? The Constitution was constructed to limit the Federal government and yet those limits have been violated and done away with progressively nearly from the beginning. Hamilton and his ilk & heirs prevailed despite the efforts of Jefferson and many others. Limited government has proven to be an oxymoron.
odd. I thought the motto of most police depts was 'Serve and Protect'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aptor hours
You know I was thinking that myself, but what do I know
They don't publish the full motto. They leave off the trailing two words: "... the State."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
to NHForester for the references !
