Printable View
Sorry EA, but I have to disagree.
From the majority opinion, 2nd paragraph, first sentance:
That's going a bit further than just absolving the municipal police department from torte liability.Quote:
It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual enti-tlement to police protection. Nor, I assume, does any Colorado statute create any such enti-tlement for the ordinary citizen.
But, but, but, how could ANY state give its citizens a general individual right to police protection? Short of your own personal cop how could this be done?
A general right, enforceable in public law and through the ballot box, to an efficient police service for the population at large, fair go. But indiviual legal rights would be a disaster.
I think the quote you set out is just legalese for "no private law rights of action" myself, and to the extent its not, its obiter dicta and not binding.
Police are supposed to protect people, otherwise their useless.
I'm simply saying that if the police cannot guarantee my personal safety, which I've personally never argued that they could or should, then I should have the right to protect myself and guarantee the safety of my family. Those opposed to personal gun ownership have always said "you don't need to protect yourself, the police will protect you". I'm pointing out that SCOTUS agrees with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Good to know, in that case I think I'll put in for a Colt Mk. V Anaconda .44 Magnum with a 6 inch barrel. Once I can be bothered to get off my lazy arse to get a gun liscence (and when im old enough)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
There is an unofficial boycott on Smith & Wesson for this. Most NRA-types won't purchase from them anymore. S&W didn't predict the downfall of the Democratic Party, and now they are paying the price for caving in.
I have never really thought about it, but what is the role/responsibility of the police force at various levels of government? At the federal level, the various bureaus and agencies are part of the executive branch. This would make them responsible for enforcing the existing laws. This probably is mirrored by most state-level agencies. I'm not really familiar with this at the city/county level though.
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/overview.htm
Can't find any sort of charter or anything. From the website, however, my police force has both a mission statement and a vision statement. ~D Now I know I'm screwed...
No, police are there to investegate crimes and detain the perpetrators, once they've uncovered who that is. They're also there to act as a security force for government officials. They also are charged with keeping the peace, in the sense of preventing unlawful assemblies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
They are not there to provide security for individual citizens. They were never intended to do this, and they're not equipped to. I have said this probably 50 to 100 times since I joined this board, and invariably, the Lefties always say I'm wrong, that I have no right to self-defense (not just guns, any self-defense) because that's what the police are for.
Didn't Colt also cave in like a house of wet cards and stop selling civilian firearms?
We need more gunmakers with guts.
Crazed Rabbit
no colt caved in for all that smart gun BS :furious3:
ruger is good for revolvers
taurus is good but cant take the abuse a ruger can.
Smith put all them stupid locks on there revolvers :furious3: (so did taurus but there locks are better made)
have you looked at 1911 style pistols or double/single action 9mm and 40sw
or dao style like glocks and the spring field xd.
Ok, I can see that. But I do think they are there to protect the general public, if not necassarily individual citizens. But yeah, it would be a bit out of their power to personally insure that everyone is safe.Quote:
No, police are there to investegate crimes and detain the perpetrators, once they've uncovered who that is. They're also there to act as a security force for government officials. They also are charged with keeping the peace, in the sense of preventing unlawful assemblies.
They are not there to provide security for individual citizens. They were never intended to do this, and they're not equipped to. I have said this probably 50 to 100 times since I joined this board, and invariably, the Lefties always say I'm wrong, that I have no right to self-defense (not just guns, any self-defense) because that's what the police are for.
Buy yourself a good old pump shotgun and you don't have those problems. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010