An Absurd Combination

[GenSeneca]

GEE...now how does that go..."TO SERVE AND PROTECT"...ya, why I do believe that is quite correct...now what was it that you were hired to do??? besides to allow vigilante justice to run supreme...LMAO

Shocking but true, the police have no obligation to protect you from harm.

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.

...

What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?

Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Later court decisions have concurred.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Shocking but true, the police have no obligation to protect you from harm.

My niece just sent me this Link: http://home.absolute.net/xode/nwofraud/obvious_fraud/protectnscam.htm

she lost her mother, my older sister due to a domestic violence murder / suicide 13 years ago...and this is some research that she was doing {most recently}...MAN DID I EVER HAVE THAT 'To Protect And Serve' entire assumption totally twisted around...JEEZ LOUISE!!!

Do You Have A Right to Police Protection?

One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. I cannot explain their rationale, other than to say that gun control proponents must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But, in light of court decisions, we find that such is not the case. Further, look at the behavior of attorneys, and in particular, one attorney Mr. John Brophy, who doesn't deny that the police have no legal obligation to protect citizens, but does attempt to intentionally mislead people into believing that the government in this country recognizes and upholds citizens' rights to self defense, a belief that is completely and utterly false! Look at Waco, Ruby Ridge, gun control legislation and associated court cases, the Bernard Goetz case in New York and other so called weapons charges cases, for evidence of the government's true intentions. In other words, Mr. Brophy is deliberately lying, in an attempt to cover up what the government really is, when he says that the government recognizes your legal rights to self-protection. Mr. Brophy's behavior is hardly surprising considering that he belongs to the same closed private club that the judges in the courts do. But, anyways, onto further discussion about what the courts have done.

The courts have decided that you have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime! Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations! To be fair to the police, I think that many, and perhaps most, officers really do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get hurt. But the key point to remember is that the courts have said they are under no legal obligation to do so. Another key point to remember is that the courts have committed treason against the people and sovereignty of this country in making those decisions, if, for no other reason than the following:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
​

For those who do not recognize what I just quoted, this is the Preamble to the United States Constitution, and the government is not obeying it because of the court decisions just mentioned, and which are backed up by case histories included later in this document.
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Preamble has as much legal force as the rest of the United States Consitution. Furthermore, the Preamble of the United States Constitution defines why, and for what reasons, the government should exist. If the government isn't following the Preamble of the United States Constitution, then, it isn't what the people intended that it should be. Or, in other words, the government is a fraud and is acting in bad faith.


The questions that everyone should be asking now are:

1. What is the government today and who does it serve if it isn't the people of this country? Find the answer here, even though the reading is dense.
2. Who do the police serve? It appears that they ultimately serve whoever the courts serve.
3. Who do the courts serve and are they accountable to the people of this country? Look at this. It should be obvious that the courts certainly do not serve the people of this country, that they are doing everything in their power to hide this from the people, and that they are trying to keep secret who it is that they do serve.
4. What is the ultimate goal of the government in this country? Try this terrifying answer.

*************************

And then the paper went on to have examples of specific cases that have been before the court systems!!!

But I still don't want to have all of John Q. Public start packing a concealed weapon/fire arms!​

​

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nope, I lurked around for over a month on and off, and I've read plenty of your liberalistic clap-trap.

Okay, if you say so, I note that you didn't bother to give us any examples, but just relied on your generous supply of vitirol.

And exactly what "braggadocio" are you talking about? We're about the same age, but the difference is that I have had to kill people in the line of duty, both in the military and in my duty as an Aux. Deputy Sheriff. Too many times I've seen the end result of people like you who were devout 'anti-gun' idiots who called in scared sh*tless out of their minds when someone broke in, but by the time we got there, they were either dead, or wishing that they were. What REALLY pisses me off about it the most though is when they or their survivors start screaming about "WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG TO GET THERE AND HELP HER???". It's simple, IT'S NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOU!! It's YOUR responsibility to protect yourself. All we're authorized to do is to investigate a crime ONCE IT'S BEEN COMMITTED, arrest any suspects, and present them to the courts, PERIOD!

You are an interesting study in contradiction. You are loudly patting yourself on the back for being the defender who has killed for noble causes, you are also bragging about the happy fact that you can decide who to protect because you have no legal resposibility to do so, and finally, you are a policeman who advocates vigilantism. I like it, Bob, but do you know what it makes you look like? I have to admit that among the police I have known you are unique in being so gleeful about your lack of legal responsibility to protect the people who pay you.

And, yes, I knew that the police were not legally bound to protect the populace--you aren't the only person with some legal education.

Yeah, right. I've spent the better part of my life, either in uniform defending this nation, or serving as an Aux. Deputy Sheriff serving my community, and you're not qualified to discuss ethics, morality, philosophy, or much of anything else on this subject with me, and you won't be until you've walked a mile in my shoes, and seen the end result of the gross stupidity and ignorance that you espouse.

Actually, I am qualified to discuss these subjects with you, what you meant to say was that I am not qualified to judge you and tell you that you are wrong.

You once again suffered from premature assumption in that I don't support gun control and never have. I no longer own any guns since I discovered that I didn't need them, but I would not take the legal right to have guns away from any law-abiding citizen. You didn't lurk long enough, I have never supported gun control in any of my posts. Do you know what it means when someone says that you are "talking through your hat"?

You are completely mental aren't you? You don't know the first thing about what you're talking about, and yet you continue to try! Do yourself, and the world a favor and STFU before everybody figures out how stupid you really are.

I guess this means that you are one of the ones who doesn't know? Or are you pretending?

Samuel Clemens was a self eggrandizing a$$hole, and his writing style is amateurish at best, but I'm sure you think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, storebought milk, and peanut butter.

Do you realize that he was just as big a misanthrope as you are?

As for the rest of your rant, grow a brain and learn how to use it, or go tend to your grandchildren and leave the thinking for the men, because you're obviously not very good at it.

I will give you credit for one thing thought, you're right when you say that a gun doesn't make a man a man, but it takes a man to pick up a weapon, and put himself between sheeple like you and the bad guys who want to rob, rape, and kill you, and that's ME.

No, it's not you, you've gone way out of your way to make it clear that Bob the Stud Policeman will not go out of his way to protect a "moron, pathetic, inadequate, incapable, liberal, devout anti-gun, scared sh1tless, grossly stupid and ignorant, completely mental, stupid, brainless, unable to think, contemptible, circle-jerking, jealous, and every man in my life has been nothing but a limp-dicked metro-sexual gutless pansy and I just WISH that I'd found a real man who would even have anything to do with me!" (Slightly paraphrased for clarity.)

So which is it? Are you the protector who calls on his courage and skill to make the world a safer place or the foul-mouthed braggart who lords his gun-toting power-trip over the people he holds in contempt? You appear to indeed be an absurd combination.

 

[GenSeneca]

MAN DID I EVER HAVE THAT 'To Protect And Serve' entire assumption totally twisted around...JEEZ LOUISE!!!

People need to wake up and realize the State serves the interests of the State, not We the people.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Bob the Builder,
I suspect a deep sense of ambivalence in you, torn between the urge to create (builder) and to destroy (kill) people who you feel are dangerous. And I think that at least part of your vitriolic writing style comes from this inner conflict, you're angry, confused, and pulled in differing directions. Perhaps you feel that if we all had guns and defended ourselves that it would take a lot of the responsibility you feel off your shoulders.

I can understand this and sympathize with your dilema even if I don't necessarily agree with you on guns or politics. You're in a difficult situation, but no more so than any of the rest of us. I was raised in a gun-toting family, my Father bought me my first gun and taught me to shoot and hunt. I worked for a year as a professional hunter killing varmits and problem animals. There are times when I would feel safer if I had guns, but I've decided that I don't want to have them, so I don't. I've killed enough in my life.

 

[Bob the Builder]

You are an interesting study in contradiction. You are loudly patting yourself on the back for being the defender who has killed for noble causes, you are also bragging about the happy fact that you can decide who to protect because you have no legal resposibility to do so, and finally, you are a policeman who advocates vigilantism. I like it, Bob, but do you know what it makes you look like? I have to admit that among the police I have known you are unique in being so gleeful about your lack of legal responsibility to protect the people who pay you.

Mare, you have absolutely NO concept of what you're talking about....EVER. Defending oneself is NOT "vigilantism", and my fiduciary responsibility is the same as that of EVERY citizen. Contrary to your convoluted concept of the law (which you obviously know NOTHING about), any and all citizen may use lethal force to defend themselves, or ANY OTHER CITIZEN who is in imminent danger of death or SERIOUS BODILY HARM!

And, yes, I knew that the police were not legally bound to protect the populace--you aren't the only person with some legal education.

Firstly I doubt you actually know any cops, and secondly from reading your clap-trap, I doubt that you have had ANY education, much less a legal one.

Actually, I am qualified to discuss these subjects with you, what you meant to say was that I am not qualified to judge you and tell you that you are wrong.

No, you're not qualified to intellectually discuss them...at all.

As for the rest of your garbage, I don't go "out of my way" to protect anyone, it's part of the job that I volunteer to do (for no pay BTW) as a way of serving my community (something else you wouldn't know DICK about), including the people you mention. It just gets real old having to go to 'protect and serve' the same ones time and time and time again because they steadfastly refuse to do for themselves, and there have been entirely too many times over the years when we weren't able to get there in time, and the only thing that we could do was wait for the coroner to come (in some cases literally) to pick up the pieces. They were MORONS, because they CHOSE to be victims, and WE'RE the ones who have to explain to whomever is left behind that their loved-ones are dead because they were STUPID. So if you feel that I hold them in contempt, you're right I do, because I've seen the devastation that they intentionally leave behind them, and the damage that they've caused to their families because of their willful STUPIDITY!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, you have absolutely NO concept of what you're talking about....EVER. Defending oneself is NOT "vigilantism", and my fiduciary responsibility is the same as that of EVERY citizen. Contrary to your convoluted concept of the law (which you obviously know NOTHING about), any and all citizen may use lethal force to defend themselves, or ANY OTHER CITIZEN who is in imminent danger of death or SERIOUS BODILY HARM!

By God, Bob, you are a riot! Pistol-packin' mamas goin' in fo' pizza armed to the teeth... I love it. When I see what cops go through when they shoot somebody or I hear about a burglar suing someone who shot them I suspect that our court system will back up like an old toilet with all the new shootings that will take place when we's all packin' heat. Proving "imminent" danger is pretty tough, "intent" is almost always hard to prove too. The misuse of guns is a national problem, but I don't think that increasing the number of guns will make the problem any better. It's very like the oft-demonstrated fact that more building inspectors don't make for better or safer buildings.

Firstly I doubt you actually know any cops, and secondly from reading your clap-trap, I doubt that you have had ANY education, much less a legal one.

Do you really think that anyone takes statements like that seriously? All this does is make you look like a loud-mouth jerk. Look back at all the stuff you've called me, and now you expect anyone to believe that you know better than I about the people I've known and the education I've had. This kind of flimsy, impotent character assissination is just cheap shots because you apparently can't think of anything substantive to contribute to the discussion.

No, you're not qualified to intellectually discuss them...at all.

Another unsubstantiated accusation.

As for the rest of your garbage, I don't go "out of my way" to protect anyone...

You volunteer to be a police person, that admission of yours contradicts your statement above. You volunteer; looks like you go "out of your way" to volunteer...

...it's part of the job that I volunteer to do (for no pay BTW) as a way of serving my community (something else you wouldn't know DICK about), including the people you mention.

And you would know about my volunteer work how? You see, just another ill-conceived statement that makes you look silly.

It just gets real old having to go to 'protect and serve' the same ones time and time and time again because they steadfastly refuse to do for themselves, and there have been entirely too many times over the years when we weren't able to get there in time, and the only thing that we could do was wait for the coroner to come (in some cases literally) to pick up the pieces. They were MORONS, because they CHOSE to be victims, and WE'RE the ones who have to explain to whomever is left behind that their loved-ones are dead because they were STUPID. So if you feel that I hold them in contempt, you're right I do, because I've seen the devastation that they intentionally leave behind them, and the damage that they've caused to their families because of their willful STUPIDITY!

YOU VOLUNTEER! Hello? If you don't want the job, then STOP volunteering. You remind me of a kid I knew in school who always hated and complained about the peanut butter sandwiches he got in his lunch from home, but when asked why he didn't tell his Mom that he didn't like peanut butter sandwiches he admitted that he made his own lunches.

Just because you are silly enough to volunteer for a job you hate, helping people you despise and hold in contempt is no reason for you to vent your spleen on me. You have never rescued me, you don't know anything about me, and your pretense to knowing me well enough to denigrate and villify me is just another example of you strutting your tiny, but tumescent, ego around like the cowcatcher on the front of a train.

You really should go back and reread all your posts to me, read all the nasty things you've said, all the ugly things you've called me and accused me of, and then ask yourself why you aren't smart enough to stop posting to me. Here's a hint: Stop volunteering to help people you hate and stop posting to people you are unworthy of your vast intellectual under-achievement.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Bob the Builder,
I suspect a deep sense of ambivalence in you, torn between the urge to create (builder) and to destroy (kill) people who you feel are dangerous. And I think that at least part of your vitriolic writing style comes from this inner conflict, you're angry, confused, and pulled in differing directions. Perhaps you feel that if we all had guns and defended ourselves that it would take a lot of the responsibility you feel off your shoulders.

I can understand this and sympathize with your dilema even if I don't necessarily agree with you on guns or politics. You're in a difficult situation, but no more so than any of the rest of us. I was raised in a gun-toting family, my Father bought me my first gun and taught me to shoot and hunt. I worked for a year as a professional hunter killing varmits and problem animals. There are times when I would feel safer if I had guns, but I've decided that I don't want to have them, so I don't. I've killed enough in my life.

After I read your last post to me it seemed that my assessment of you may indeed be valid. You claim you don't go "out of your way" but admit that your sense of duty to the community makes you volunteer even though you despise the people you are called upon to help. Your contempt suggests that your inner conflict makes you feel contempt for yourself as well.

I find it telling too, that you don't even try to formulate cogent arguments, but instead you simply deny out of hand that I know anything at all about anything, in fact I don't even have a brain according to one of your posts. That kind of blanket denial does nothing to support your position, but rather makes your statements appear barren, sterile, effete, enervated.

In other times I would suggest counseling, but the way the construction market is these days there are few of us who can afford the time or money for a good counselor. Too bad to, because your attitude indicates that you are in pain. Perhaps more recreation and less volunteering would help, I hear that murdering fish is quite therapeutic for some.

 

[Bob the Builder]

By God, Bob, you are a riot! Pistol-packin' mamas goin' in fo' pizza armed to the teeth... I love it. When I see what cops go through when they shoot somebody or I hear about a burglar suing someone who shot them I suspect that our court system will back up like an old toilet with all the new shootings that will take place when we's all packin' heat. Proving "imminent" danger is pretty tough, "intent" is almost always hard to prove too. The misuse of guns is a national problem, but I don't think that increasing the number of guns will make the problem any better. It's very like the oft-demonstrated fact that more building inspectors don't make for better or safer buildings.

Mare, you might want to look at some ACTUAL statistics instead of relying on the fear mongering Brady crowd. In EVERY community that has either started allowing, or eased the restrictions on, CCW's and open carry, crime rates, as well as shootings, have gone DOWN! Your assertion that the "misuse of guns is a national problem" is nothing but a very weak attempt at misdirection as well. In fact, the unlawful use of a firearm by the lawful owner of the firearm accounts for fewer than 2,500 fatalities in the US every year. How many people are killed in automobile collisions when the lawful owner was the operator? For that matter, how many people are killed by their own DOCTOR because of neglect? (here's a hint, it's far more than by firearms).

As for the rest of your crap, that's all it is, CRAP! You bought into the lies of your looney lefty "hate America first" buddies hook, line, and sinker, and you're not the least bit interested in having your mind changed by FACTS!

 

[top gun]

Mare, you have absolutely NO concept of what you're talking about....EVER. Defending oneself is NOT "vigilantism", and my fiduciary responsibility is the same as that of EVERY citizen. Contrary to your convoluted concept of the law (which you obviously know NOTHING about), any and all citizen may use lethal force to defend themselves, or ANY OTHER CITIZEN who is in imminent danger of death or SERIOUS BODILY HARM!

Firstly I doubt you actually know any cops, and secondly from reading your clap-trap, I doubt that you have had ANY education, much less a legal one.


No, you're not qualified to intellectually discuss them...at all.

Actually Mare's comments were cogent and you really should back off the constant rampage of personal insults against individual posters. Cuss out and defame or make fun of the politicians or the policies or various groups ideology... but you'll only spur insults back and eventually go over the edge if you continue to attack individual posters.

And I know for saying this to expect an attack.

I am "qualified" to discuss the above stated legal issues. I have several long time friends that are police officers including one who was killed in the line of duty and my brother is a attorney (and real estate broker I think I've mentioned this before).

...any and all citizen may use lethal force to defend themselves, or ANY OTHER CITIZEN who is in imminent danger of death or SERIOUS BODILY HARM!

This is legally untrue in most jurisdictions and I don't want people thinking you are giving accurate legal advice and then ending up in jail. One has a right to defend their own self from attack. And only while that attack is ongoing. There are many circumstances where one cannot legally defend another.

There are thousands of cases every year where a group of people get into an altercation and someone hurts or kills someone trying to use the excuse that "they were about to or were hurting my buddy". When a group is in an altercation under the law it's called mutual combat regardless of which person is fighting with which person. That "my buddy" defense will most always not hold up.

Secondly the second a attack is broken off any retaliation also puts you in jeopardy of arrest. Someone beating the crap out of you (which I have a feeling you may have experienced) and stops and starts to walk away or say get in their car (breaking off the attack) and you get back up rushing that person and firing the fight back up or shooting at the person thinking you have to or want to end the fight in another way... that too can also put you in jail.

I know people that these scenarios have both happened to and people who have arrested people for doing one or the other or both.

Just a post for others I'm sure your mind is made up.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, you might want to look at some ACTUAL statistics instead of relying on the fear mongering Brady crowd. In EVERY community that has either started allowing, or eased the restrictions on, CCW's and open carry, crime rates, as well as shootings, have gone DOWN! Your assertion that the "misuse of guns is a national problem" is nothing but a very weak attempt at misdirection as well. In fact, the unlawful use of a firearm by the lawful owner of the firearm accounts for fewer than 2,500 fatalities in the US every year. How many people are killed in automobile collisions when the lawful owner was the operator? For that matter, how many people are killed by their own DOCTOR because of neglect? (here's a hint, it's far more than by firearms).

As for the rest of your crap, that's all it is, CRAP! You bought into the lies of your looney lefty "hate America first" buddies hook, line, and sinker, and you're not the least bit interested in having your mind changed by FACTS!

2,500 deaths is a national problem, in my opinion. The fact that more people are killed in car crashes is irrelevant. Nobody dies from smoking marijuana and look how that is regulated. I am actually aware of the stats, I also read the paper and watch the news so I know about accidental shootings too.

I don't think that your problem with me has anything much to do with guns, I think that you are a severely conflicted and in pain, and I'm sorry for you because it must be a difficult way to live. If coming on a discussion site and venting spleen on people you don't know is your only outlet for the psychic pain you feel, then you suffer from a very common complaint. Most of us are angry and upset about the way the world is going and feel that we can't really do anything substantive to change it.

Refusing to even discuss my non-gun posts suggests that you are--and wish to remain--in denial. You are lashing out at me with accusations that have nothing to do with me or anything I have posted--it's like you come here to vomit out your misery and you'll splash it onto anyone who'll talk to you. If I was less educated I would take it personally, but I know better. The unfortunate thing for you is that this uncontrolled venting and abuse of strangers doesn't really help you and it drives away people who might be friends to you. Violently lashing out at strangers prevents anyone from getting close enough to you to even offer help. The world's pretty crazy, the economy is in the toilet, and driving others away means that you have no one to help you or even care about you. Sad.

Topguns post to you was correct, your "rampage" will only result in rampage being returned to you with interest because you are outnumbered on Earth.

 

[Bob the Builder]

2,500 deaths is a national problem, in my opinion. The fact that more people are killed in car crashes is irrelevant. Nobody dies from smoking marijuana and look how that is regulated. I am actually aware of the stats, I also read the paper and watch the news so I know about accidental shootings too.

ARE YOU ON CRACK??? It is FAR from irrelevent! You're sitting here decrying the number of firearms related deaths (which have fallen steadily over the past 15 years), but you're going to overlook the dramatic increase in motor vehicle related fatalities? Oh, and as to your claims of being aware of the stats on accidental shootings, I'd be willing to be you don't. According to the CDC, there were a total of 642 accidental firearms related deaths in the US in 2004, while conversely there were 43,664 killed in auto collisions, and of the 642, less than half involved the legal owner of the firearms while the majority involved a stolen firearm.

I don't think...

You could have stopped right there and been accurate. You're not qualified to psychoanalyze anyone Mare, so don't even try.

Refusing to even discuss my non-gun posts suggests that you are--and wish to remain--in denial.

WHAT??? "Refusing" to discuss?? You really are on drugs aren't you?

Topguns post to you was correct,...

Topgun is a tool, and not even a good one. He's the "bargain basement" kind of tool, like you'd find in the dollar bin at Big Lots. Disposable, and guaranteed to bend and break the first time you put any serious pressure on it. You're not even that good.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

ARE YOU ON CRACK??? It is FAR from irrelevent! You're sitting here decrying the number of firearms related deaths (which have fallen steadily over the past 15 years), but you're going to overlook the dramatic increase in motor vehicle related fatalities? Oh, and as to your claims of being aware of the stats on accidental shootings, I'd be willing to be you don't. According to the CDC, there were a total of 642 accidental firearms related deaths in the US in 2004, while conversely there were 43,664 killed in auto collisions, and of the 642, less than half involved the legal owner of the firearms while the majority involved a stolen firearm.

Perhaps I should have said that the auto deaths are not germane to our discussion of gun deaths. Hundreds of thousands of babies die from abortions too, thousands have died in Iraq... how many more sources of fatalities should we be discussing in relation to gun deaths? It isn't just accidental gun deaths either, it is also the deliberate ones that should be counted.

And what exactly do you want me to do about guns? You're here sh1tting, shooting, and shouting, but so far all you've produced is noise and bad smell.

You could have stopped right there and been accurate. You're not qualified to psychoanalyze anyone Mare, so don't even try.

Like I said, I don't get personally involved in baseless attacks delivered by anonymous people on discussion sites. Actually I am qualified to psychoanalyze having spent more years and more money in schools than I like to remember. Your wild denigrating statements bear no truth, they are just wishful thinking on your part.

WHAT??? "Refusing" to discuss?? You really are on drugs aren't you?

Shouting "No, sir! No, sir!" isn't discussing. Are you getting counseling for your anger problem? Are you getting adequate rest? A lack of sleep can make a person bellicose as well. Proper nutrition? Have you had a physical this year--sometimes uncontrolled anger and aggression can be a sign of encroaching disease. Do you have frequent headaches? An ulcer? Gastric reflux? It's telling that even when someone is nice to you that you lash out at them viciously.

Topgun is a tool, and not even a good one. He's the "bargain basement" kind of tool, like you'd find in the dollar bin at Big Lots. Disposable, and guaranteed to bend and break the first time you put any serious pressure on it. You're not even that good.

We are all tools in God's Hands. Topgun is okay, he's polite and thoughtful and never resorts to the kind of abuse that some people dish out on this site.

I don't know, Bob, but maybe you should get professional help soon. Good luck.

 

[GenSeneca]

Topgun is okay, he's polite and thoughtful and never resorts to the kind of abuse that some people dish out on this site.

Aw man, my stomach hurts from laughing so hard... Hold on a second while I wipe the tears of out of my eyes...

Ok... Continue with the flame war.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Perhaps I should have said that the auto deaths are not germane to our discussion of gun deaths. Hundreds of thousands of babies die from abortions too, thousands have died in Iraq... how many more sources of fatalities should we be discussing in relation to gun deaths? It isn't just accidental gun deaths either, it is also the deliberate ones that should be counted.

So it's not the deaths that bothers you, it's only the manner of the death? That's convoluted on a level I can't begin to comprehend, especially given that firearms related deaths account for such a low percentage of all deaths in the US every year, and that smacks of AGENDA! Oh, and it's MILLIONS of abortions.

Now, if you want to limit it to strictly firearms related fatalities, fine. According to the CDC, in 2004 there were a total of 30,896 firearms related fatalities in the US. Among those, 16,883, or 54% were SUICIDES while 12,791, or 41% were homicides. According to the FBI, among these firearms related homicides (not suicides) 16% were classified as "Felony Firearm" related fatalities, 27% were classified as "Argument Firearm" related fatalities, 9% were classified as "Gang Firearm" related fatalities while the remaining 46% were classified as "Unknown Firearm" or "Other Firearm" related fatalities which includes LEO shootings, accidents, and self defense. Also, well over half of all firearms related homicides committed in the US are committed with a stolen firearm, and the killer already has a criminal record and is prohibited from possessing a firearm in the first place. The latest numbers I've seen indicate that of all firearms related homicides, only 20% were committed with a legally owned firearm, and by the owner of the firearm, and of these, fewer than 20% of that number were "unlawful" homicides, meaning that it was not a clear cut case of self defense, or the court ruled that though it was "self defense", the amount of force used was "excessive" (which in places like New York City and California means that the perp that got shot was using something less than a 155mm howitzer when they were shot).

What people like you consistantly fail to comprehend is that there are literally MILLIONS of lives that are saved every year because the intended victim of a felony assault was ARMED, and able to thwart the attack, usually by simply brandishing their weapon. This is NOT a subject of debate, it is FACT, and has been tracked consistantly since the early 1960's.

All of that to say this, you either really don't know sh*t about the subject, or you're one of those that doesn't understand, comprehend, or believe in the Constitution. The Second Amendment is there for a reason, because without it, there isn't a First Amendment!

And what exactly do you want me to do about guns? You're here sh1tting, shooting, and shouting, but so far all you've produced is noise and bad smell.

The only "bad smell" around here is coming from your rotting brain housing group! What I want you to do about guns is acknowledge and abide by your fiduciary responsibility and CARRY A WEAPON! Stop being a potential victim! It is YOUR responsibility to protect yourself, it is YOUR responsibility to protect your family, it is YOUR responsibility to protect your neighbors, and when you fail to do so, YOU are responsible for what happens to yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

Like I said, I don't get personally involved in baseless attacks delivered by anonymous people on discussion sites. Actually I am qualified to psychoanalyze having spent more years and more money in schools than I like to remember. Your wild denigrating statements bear no truth, they are just wishful thinking on your part.

OH BULLSH*T!!! First you own a construction company, and now you're a fully qualified psychologist??? Can you say ANYTHING without LYING?? You're worse than Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Harry Skreed, Nancy Piglosi, and Obliviot all rolled into one!

Shouting "No, sir! No, sir!" isn't discussing.<drivel>

I don't "discuss" with willful idiots, I verbally smack 'em upside the suckhole until they get their headspace and timing corrected. It's like my Sergeant used to say "the beatings will now commence, and they will continue until moral improves". I don't care if you like it or not, you're grossly ignorant, or willfully stupid, take your choice, but in either case you don't have the first clue WTF you're talking about, and you're entirely too old for me to be willing to pass it off as youthful ignorance. You've staked out a totally fallacious stance, based on emotion, and without the first shred of evidence to support your positions, and you have the gall to be "offended" when you're finally told that it's downright stupid to do that? PLEASE!!!

We are all tools in God's Hands.

Oh, and now you're going to bring God into this? ROTFLMFAO!!! God has about as much to do with this as the Tooth Fairy does. If you want to be a Martyr, that's your choice, but you have NO right to expect, or demand, that anyone else join you! Frankly all of those "meely-mouthed, pacifist, sitting around in a circle and singing Kumbya" martyrs bore the crap out of me, I find them to be a bunch of self-eggrandizing POS's with their Holier Than Thou "look at me, see what a sacrifice I'm making for my religion, cause, whatever", and the world would be a far better place without them.