Um just to be clear I dont do any of those things. I think the terrorist should just go to Rikers and COs take a smoke break. I dont get your Hollywood thing is that about sex harrasment or something?
But in nutshell i got a gun too but I dont think taking it everywhere all the times gonna do much…plus most times its not allowed. I wasn’t saying take everyones guns away. Thats unamerican but jeez cant we make it harder for weirdos & criminals to get them
2 Likes
This is the kind of person that ISIS recruits as well.
Suicides in the military can be linked to number of tours. Where the military failed the troops is that it was aware of this fact yet continued to have troops serve multiple tours with little time in between. I don’t know if there are figures available to show actual numbers but there were soldiers who were on meds during their tours and while on missions.
Also, and I don’t know if the military has any studies on this, but we know that CTE is linked to violence and suicide, and you have soldiers whose vehicles were hit by IEDs, multiple times during their tours.
1 Like
Yes, that’s perfectly fine and good.
The issue is any policy like this needs to be very specific, very well thought out, and logically FIT the profile of the crimes it is in response to. None of those things are present in almost any call for or issued legislation by the left. (I say the left because they are typically the ones calling for legislation re: guns.)
Any firearm legislation that further restricts ownership is going to be met with a lot fo pushback, so if you want it to pass, it has to be very good policy. And I’m sorry, but that policy is unlikely to come from people who don’t even understand the basic functions of firearms and say dumb shit like “it’s designed to kill”.
I’ve been reading about extreme poverty lately (<$1/day). Watched a few documentaries too. What struck me is how freaking happy these people were. They were malnourished and fighting to survive. They were all tickled pink to meet the film makers and not one person in the village treated them poorly.
Contrast that with any office full of paper pushers or blue collar workers who do nothing but bitch here in the states. They make easily 100 to 200 times what the extreme poor make and certainly aren’t mal nourished.
Grant Cardone talks about depression and how he deals with it… by setting huge goals and giving himself so much work to do there’s no time for depression. He gives the extra millions he makes to charity cause he doesn’t need em and invests the rest in real estate so the cash doesn’t sit around and let him be lasy. Stays hungry that way.
That’s not why the judges ruled the way they did. Don’t be guilty of spreading misinformation.
PTSD is a bitch to live with…
Not that you were, but we can’t discount that enough.
So you’re saying the police are responsible for my safety? I can hold them accountable if I’m the victim of a felony in their city?
You hit me as just slightly left of center. That’s a conversation worth having. I’m not exactly far or even middle right. I don’t carry a gun.
My frustration with the left is as a slightly right of center moderate who is sympathetic to many of the basic human rights which have been so difficultly won, but who also sees conversations about how to truly help people get shut down when it flies in the face of what can only be described as a new orthodoxy. Take affirmative action. Is it helping poor blacks or is it helping well-to-do blacks and immigrants? Why do we need to give preferential treatment to recent immigrants from, say, Nigeria? If we owe anyone a special handout shouldn’t that be to people whose ancestors were slaves and have suffered generational poverty from issues that stem from that handed down through the generations? Or is it better to just keep blaming “institutional racism?” If we want to help break the glass ceiling is it better to make changes to working life abd careers to account for absences to raise children, or do we just wear pussies on our heads and keep telling women they should be able to have it all (at the same time)? Hell, balancing work and family life isn’t easy for men either. My point is one cannot have these conversations in many places today without being fired or threatened. The ones who really don’t care know how to pay lip service. The ones genuinely interested in progress, but have a different viewpoint get shut down.
1 Like
Yep, they are. And the reason you can’t sue cops (generally) is because they are agents of the government (sovereign immunity) with the caveat that you have rare avenues of relief if they act egregiously.
Police cannot guarantee your safety, nor are they solely responsible for it, but yes, they are responsible for it. That’s their damn job, to which they assign an oath they take seriously - independent of what the libertarian brochure says.
1 Like
Look up the SCOTUS decision regarding Jessica Gonzales and tell us again that this is from a libertarian brochure. This case was decided against her even though a court order that police were to arrest the violator. The police simply picked up the pieces. Literally the dead bodies of her children. That’s not to knock the police (except the ones in that case). They’re poorly paid and can only do so much.
1 Like
So they’re only half responsible for your safety, but can’t be held accountable.
SCOTUS disagreed with you btw.
1 Like
That case was decided on precisely on the grounds I’m talking about - a police department couldn’t be sued under 1983 (an exception to basic sovereign immunity when an officer violates the law) for failure to enforce a restraining order on the basis that a restraining order was not mandatory under state law, and so an individual right to enforcement didn’t attach. And, do your homework - while you rail against “the Left” here, the opinion was written by Scalia, and the dissent was written by Stevens.
Got anything else?
We are agreeing with the decision. Police have NO obligation to protect you, ever. It would be chaos otherwise. Every police force on earth would be sued into the ground.
You really don’t understand the implication of an unenforceable “obligation” do you? Without redress the unarmed individual is left at the mercy of criminals and poor policing.
As for who decided the case, you should list all the justices who signed the majority opinion. That decision is based on a rather long history of precedent. Congress could change it. That’s the way the system was designed.
Nope, they didn’t disagree with me - I never said police had a constitutional duty to protect someone. If they did, then that person would have a cause of action under civil rights laws to sue the cop for violating their constitutional rights - that’s what this case was about. No such right exists as against police officers, on these facts, even under Section 1983. (But it might under worse facts.)
Just because you don’t have a right of action in court doesn’t mean cops have no duty to protect you generally.
Yep, there are tons of them, precisely because government has many duties to the citizen but maintains sovereign immunity (see the Eleventh Amendment, for starters).
Not true. What you assert, by the way, is preposterous - for every police action a citizen is unhappy with (failure to show up sooner, failure to draw a weapon quicker, whatever) there should be a potential cause of action? Absurd.
Ok - the two dissenters were liberals Steven and Ginsburg. Everyone else signed on the decision.
Well, good.
But this isnt true, and it isn’t what the decision said. So where do you go from there?
So it’s their job when they feel like it but hell, when a group of cops don’t take a restraining order seriously and kids’ bodies find themselves in a perp’s trunk you can rest assured the cops take their jobs seriously. Good stuff. Here, take my gun. I’m safe now.
You’re funny. Can’t understand the law, but funny.
1 Like
This is the rub. Police enforce the laws they can and maintain public order as best they can. But they cannot be held responsible for any individual’s safety.
You cannot have a responsibility or obligation that has no consequences from failing.
You missed the entire point. The case cited goes far beyond drawing a gun fast enough. Read the majority opinion and the dissent. The point is that even in particularly egregious cases there is no redress. Even if there was redress, that wouldn’t bring the kids back. People aren’t irrational if they wish to be able to defend themselves.