A Challenge To Anyone

No, passive and submissive means counting on a Big Bad Government to serve and protect you.

Some Canadians are finally getting woke.

“In March, the Commission received widespread public scrutiny when its “trauma-informed” mandate was used by the RCMP’s union to argue that no RCMP officers should be compelled to testify at hearings lest they be “re-traumatized.”

Several weeks into hearings, Halifax’s The Chronicle Herald noted that hundreds of police documents relating to the massacre had been pulled down from the Commission’s official website. This included sworn testimony from Const. Nick Dorrington in which he spoke of RCMP understaffing in the areas targeted by the gunman, and even criticized a fellow officer who came face-to-face with the shooter during the rampage and failed to immediately give chase.

Perhaps most notably, the Mass Casualty Commission did not admit evidence from the FitBit of victim Heather O’Brien indicating that she may have been showing a pulse for more than eight hours after police left her for dead.”
NATIONAL POST, FIRST READING: Why inquiry into Canada’s worst mass shooting keeps hemorrhaging public confidence, By Tristin Hopper, 5/26/2022.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...eps-hemorrhaging-public-confidence/ar-AAXKU9j

 

Extensively and this is not about me it is about what you are saying

What is this "culture of guns" and were it gone tomorrow what would be different?

Not that I have seen what is it? What constitutionally met law would have prevented this shooting?

 

The more I hear about this, the angrier I get. It took an hour for law enforcement to confront the shooter. In the meantime, children were bleeding out and dying.

Law enforcement should have arrived with body armor. Their job is to protect and server. They should have been willing to face the shooter in sufficient numbers to stop him. Some of law enforcement would die in the process, but their mental attitude should have been such that they were willing to give up their own life. There is zero excuse for hanging back under the circumstances.

 

The police, by law, have no duty to protect any individual. IOW, “Because we owe a duty to everybody, we owe it to nobody.'"

Ordinary Americans are not encouraged to become aware of how this works.

For instance:

“In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.”

Relying on the assurance that police would arrive and protect them the other women came out of hiding when they heard the police arrive. They knocked on the door and left when the burglars did not answer. The violent attacks continued for the rest of the night.


Conclusion:

“t is easy to condemn the failings of the police. However, the desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specific persons arises. In neither of these cases has a relationship been alleged beyond that found in general police responses to crimes.”
“The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.” (emphasis mine)

44 A.2d 1 (1981)
Carolyn WARREN, et al., Appellants, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellees. Wilfred NICHOL, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 79-6, 79-394.

 

I don't care what the courts said. Eight year old children were bleeding to death.

 

The fact that the law does not impose a duty on police to protect and serve individuals demonstrates why Americans need to be able to defend themselves.

This mass slaughter should wake up at least a few of our gun control fanatics.

 

This is not the same. I have guns in our house for protection. Law enforcement would never make it to our rural home in time.

Law enforcement should not have hesitated going into that school. Some would have likely died, but some eight year old children would have lived.

 

When did I state that I wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment? I am a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment. I just don't understand why the right is sooooooooo afraid at making firearms more difficult to acquire than a drivers license.

My 2nd amendment rights are not stripped away if it takes me longer to acquire a weapon or to have a license to own a firearm.

 

No evidence at all to support that statement. Before Austria gun ban mass killings were a decadal after they are still a decadal event what did change was a huge uptick in rape and assault and other crimes. The same is true for every where else little change in gun deaths because there had never been many to begin with and huge uptick in all other violent crimes. It is a failed idea that does little more than empower the political class who already have too much power.

 

In Australia, after the Port Arbor massacre, citizens decided they did not want to live in a country where an lunatic could easily get a semi-automatic gun and kill 30 people.

Here, even after Sandy Hook, Cobb, Las Vegas and so many others, nothing is done.

Not because people want the status quo, but because conservative politicians are in thrall to the gun lobby.

 

Has that prevented Australian homicide rates from going up?

 

Since 2000, the homicide rate in Australia has decreased by 50%.

 

How about since 1960.

 

Even cash has its traces. And with cash, you can always deposit it at a bank.

Safety code violations for public and private schools generally unless it is electronic and doors can be open from the inside if the fire alarm, practice or real, goes off.

 

The latest report from the Australian Institute of Criminology shows the homicide rate is increasing in Australia.

The latest report covers the period 2019-20. It shows the homicide rate has risen in Australia over this period by 16%. The homicide rate in 2019 - 2020 was 1.02 incidents per 100,000 people, the highest rate since 2012 - 2013.
Homicide is on the rise in Australia. Should we be concerned? | Bond University

 

No one is giving up "part of the second amendment" here.

The second does not allow that. Even Scalia made that argument in his Heller Opinion.

 

That is too absurd to even comment on.

 

Not really.

Let me eulicate you.

You are selling Item X for $800 to person 1. Person 1 withdraws $800 and provides the money to you in exchange for item X.

You take $700 and deposit into your bank, remote deposit at ATM.

Item X is used to commit a crime and police catch person 1, arrest person 1 for the crime and recover the firearm used in the said crime. Person 1 offers info in exchange for leniency, so person 1 talks. Police verify the info that person 1 withdraw the money for that amount, the location of the exchange, which happens to have surveillance, etc. Police then do research, determine which financial institution or institutions you use, and obtained records of said financial institutions. Now, you did this in cash. and you say "that is too absurd?"

Several points. People who are caught on many occasions confess or offer info in exchange for a lighter sentence. No honor among thieves so to speak. And a lot of times the other party has no way of knowing what the person has told the police or not.

 

Or the person does not withdraw $800 because he already had money. I do not deposit any of it because I will use it fairly quickly anyway.

 

Sorry no outside of big blue cities, very few people are in favor of gun bans. And by the way if you could keep crazy people from getting weapons you wouldn't have an excuse for useless gun bans.

 

See what you just did is an argument of authority. Which most times is perfectly fine. However, that is because it is a justifiable argument.

Your position (and Scalia’s for that matter) is not defensible given the text of the amendment.

The second is VERY a clear in stating that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It is, in fact, the ONLY RIGHT enshrined in the constitution which explicitly states it shall not be infringed upon. Which technically means every single right in the constitution can be infringed upon to some degree EXCEPT the second amendment.

There is no other logically justifiable reading of the text.

 

Simple question. Why don't other countries have this problem?
Ted Cruz even ran yesterday when asked this same question.

 

Pends on which problem you’re talking about. Gun violence as a whole or mass shootings? Because there are different reasons for both.

 

Are they really?