Liberals looking for guns

outrider58 said:

I swear 3paul. It's the last time!

Click to expand...

sleepingdino said:

Liberals/leftists can face down a gunman with harsh words. This is what they get for supporting policies restricting access. I wonder how they like waiting for a HQL?

Regardless, having a weapon is not as crucial as having motivation and skills.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Pinecone said:

Also, not every one is liberal on ALL issues or conservative on ALL issues.

Click to expand...

TheBert said:

Without the 2A the rest of the A's are suggestions.

Click to expand...

jc1240 said:

Love the TP rolls falling out of her bag...

Click to expand...

Sling Blade said:

But...but...

How Im sposed to protect my thousand rolls of TP?

Click to expand...

Steel Hunter said:

You let the police protect you like a good little citizen.

Click to expand...

platoonDaddy said:

My sister-in-law is a big time lib and when I told her they don't have to protect you, she went off. I explained it is case law (my term, not sure the correct term) that they don't have the constitutional duty to protect you. Even with the link to the 2005 ruling, she didn't accept.

Oh well, so much for invites to family gatherings.






The DeShaney decision has been cited by many courts across the nation and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Namely—on June 27, 2005, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court again ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.[8] The decision overturned a federal appeals court ruling which permitted a lawsuit against the town of Castle Rock for the police’s failure to respond after Jessica Gonzales tried to get the police to arrest her estranged husband Simon Gonzales for kidnapping their three daughters (ages 7, 8, and 10) while they were playing outside, in violation of a court-issued protective order. [9] After Simon called to tell Jessica where they were at (in Denver at an amusement park), for hours she pleaded for the police to arrest Simon. [10] But, the police failed to act before Simon showed up at the police department and started shooting inside, and with the bodies of the 3 children in the trunk of his car.[11]

https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect

Click to expand...

platoonDaddy said:

My sister-in-law is a big time lib and when I told her they don't have to protect you, she went off. I explained it is case law (my term, not sure the correct term) that they don't have the constitutional duty to protect you. Even with the link to the 2005 ruling, she didn't accept.

Oh well, so much for invites to family gatherings.






The DeShaney decision has been cited by many courts across the nation and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Namely—on June 27, 2005, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court again ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.[8] The decision overturned a federal appeals court ruling which permitted a lawsuit against the town of Castle Rock for the police’s failure to respond after Jessica Gonzales tried to get the police to arrest her estranged husband Simon Gonzales for kidnapping their three daughters (ages 7, 8, and 10) while they were playing outside, in violation of a court-issued protective order. [9] After Simon called to tell Jessica where they were at (in Denver at an amusement park), for hours she pleaded for the police to arrest Simon. [10] But, the police failed to act before Simon showed up at the police department and started shooting inside, and with the bodies of the 3 children in the trunk of his car.[11]

https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect

Click to expand...

platoonDaddy said:

My sister-in-law is a big time lib and when I told her they don't have to protect you, she went off. I explained it is case law (my term, not sure the correct term) that they don't have the constitutional duty to protect you. Even with the link to the 2005 ruling, she didn't accept.

Oh well, so much for invites to family gatherings.






The DeShaney decision has been cited by many courts across the nation and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Namely—on June 27, 2005, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court again ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.[8] The decision overturned a federal appeals court ruling which permitted a lawsuit against the town of Castle Rock for the police’s failure to respond after Jessica Gonzales tried to get the police to arrest her estranged husband Simon Gonzales for kidnapping their three daughters (ages 7, 8, and 10) while they were playing outside, in violation of a court-issued protective order. [9] After Simon called to tell Jessica where they were at (in Denver at an amusement park), for hours she pleaded for the police to arrest Simon. [10] But, the police failed to act before Simon showed up at the police department and started shooting inside, and with the bodies of the 3 children in the trunk of his car.[11]

https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect

Click to expand...

rseymorejr said:

I believe there was a similar previous case from DC, from back in the 70's I think

Click to expand...

Seagrave1963 said:

"We are all responsible for our own personal safety, whether we like it or not." Why can't Constitutional Carry be directly linked to the SCOTUS rulings?

Click to expand...

Ellegon said:

Warren v. D.C. 1986

Click to expand...

LeadSled1 said:

Hey, point people to Every Town for a gun Safety’s video repository of safety videos on how to safely handle, clean, store, and use firearms. They are a gun safety organization right? For the one who I know is serious and was just at Gun Connection we will be doing safety briefings and handling practices over FaceTime before she ever handles live ammunition.

Click to expand...