Frist Defends Refusal To Extend Weapons Ban

[Rose Siding]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) yesterday defended Congress's refusal to extend the expiring federal ban on assault weapons as reflecting the "will of the American people," prompting a rebuttal from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chief sponsor of the 10-year-old ban.

"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire" at midnight Monday, Frist told reporters.

"That's baloney," said Feinstein when she was informed of Frist's comment. "The 'will of the American people' has been carefully evaluated by poll after poll that show two-thirds to three-fourths of the people support the ban."

The most recent national poll, conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, found that 68 percent of Americans wanted to extend the ban, including 57 percent of those with a gun in their household.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6757-2004Sep8.html?nav=rss_politics

[shawcomm]

1. I love Feinstein, but the silly cosmetic ban needs to go.

oooo scary looking rifle...

It's just silly.

[LisaL]

2. If it's just cosmetic

then what exactly pro-gun people are so happy about? And why are policemen worried?
OOOOOOOH, my pretty looking assault weapon is here?
:eyes:

[slackmaster]

14. Answers for you

If it's just cosmetic... ...then what exactly pro-gun people are so happy about?...

Restoration of a little liberty. It's like a starving person finding your discarded bread crust. How often do gun control laws get repealed or go away?

For me personally, it means I have a wider range of choices of how to configure one of the rifles I use for target shooting. Expiration of the ban means I can install certain parts without worrying about whether or not I'm risking a prison term for violating a federal law.

For example, under the ban I cannot install an adjustable-length stock (which might improve my score significantly) because it might violate the federal ban, even though it would be legal for me to install under California law.

...And why are policemen worried?

They're not worried.

Police chiefs are politicians. The views they express do not necessarily reflect those of a majority of officers.

[CBHagman]

70. Police not worried? Check out the New York Times.

Right on the front page: a cop standing next to a sorrowful, wheelchair-bound James Brady (Remember him?). Guess what they want to renew?

Then again, I guess Frist decided getting more people killed was more important than saving people's lives.

[FeebMaster]

77. James Brady. Shot with an assault weapon?

Nope.

[Character Assassin]

80. I am an officer in one of CA's most violent cities. I'm not worried

The ban is cosmetic, and it's expiration will do nothing to effect violent crime either here or elsewhere in the country. Gang members and others who resort to murder can already get such weapons on the black market, but we never see them used in crimes, nor do we ever seize them as evidence. They far prefer cheap and/or stolen handguns. Easier to conceal, easier to dispose of on the run and easier to replace.

And what, pray tell, did an assault weapon have to do with Brady?

[op6203]

113. Another LEO checking in....

I'm also not worried.

1 - It's mostly cosmetic.
2 - Criminals don't care what the law is. A criminal, that is willing to kill, certainly won't mind breaking a gun law.

Just because you see a picture of a cop in a Brady ad, doesn't mean "cops are worried". Yeah, they'll find a few that will stand by them, but it means nothing other than that PERSON supports that agenda. If you run an ad with an accountant standing next to you, it doesn't mean all accountants take that stance. Just like with any profession - some people are Democrats, some are Republican - some are anti-gun, some are pro-gun.

Surely, people aren't that easily tricked into believing that one cop (or a handful of them) speaks for us all (or even for the majority).

OP

[slackmaster]

90. James Brady was shot by a lunatic with a handgun

Not an assault weapon.

[jumpstart33]

159. Frist should have his medical license lifted for his stance.

"First do no harm." I know medical Drs who own firearms but of them would own an assault weapon.

[DoNotRefill]

161. Actually, doctors and lawyers are the two groups that own...

a disproportionate number of machineguns. Why? Because who else can afford to blow $250,000 on a transferrable Class 3 weapon, and have the "juice" to get through the Jim Crow process required to own them?

[pinniped]

3. Asshole * said he would sign it.

Why the fcuk is he disobeying the emperor?

Because fristMoran knows the gunnuts are supposed to vote against his pathetic ass if he did.

Hell, I bet those morans would vote for the pathetic asshole no matter what he does. Those morans probably voted for the elder ahole * after he signed the 89 import gun ban.

[ZJoeZ]

127. He doesn't really want to sign it...

He's having Delay hold it up so he can play both sides.

[farmbo]

4. Real men (with normal sized penis's) don't need assault rifles...

I can (and will) defend my home, take any legal game, and even shoot for jollies, with the automatic weapons ban extended. We don't need the automatics with 80 shot clips which the drug dealers use.

That's why all of our law enforcement professionals want them banned.

Tell me again why you won't bring this to a vote Frist?

Penis envy, maybe.

[FeebMaster]

5. You mean assault weapons.

I can (and will) defend my home, take any legal game, and even shoot for jollies, with the automatic weapons ban extended.

You mean the Assault Weapons Ban which only affects semi-automatic weapons. Fully-automatic weapons, of course, have been heavily regulated since 1934.


That's why all of our law enforcement professionals want them banned.

All?

[FatSlob]

9. Proof of the antis' lies and distortions.

This guy actually believes that machine guns are covered under the AWB of 1994. Machine guns (automatics) are covered under the law from 1934. The AWB passed 60 years later largely covers cosmetic features, and has nothing to do with machine guns.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Libby2]

6. Frist makes me ill

Him and his whole damned family.

[FatSlob]

10. Even he can be right occasionally, and he is right now.

Even a blind dog will occasionally find a bone, that seems to be the case here.

[Tempest]

23. More money for his family owned HMO

Assault weapons do a lot more damage, which means a lot more business for his family.

Frist is a vampire.

[Cicero]

42. "Assault weapons" do no more damage...

...than any other kind of semi-automatic. One shot per trigger pull.

Later,

[GOPAgainstGW]

45. AGREE THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN AMERICAN SOCIETY-STUPID NOT TO BAN ALL!

------------------------------
Beltway and Texas Republicans
Against Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc.
------------------------------
"Insider’s News”, Vol 1 - Kerry-Edwards Campaign Doing Well
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x748458
“Insider’s News” Vol 1.1 - Great Anti-Bush Sites
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x756409

[Cicero]

47. Don't take my previous comment as support for AWB

It is not. I was responding to the following:

Assault weapons do a lot more damage, which means a lot more business for his family.

"Assault weapons" do no more damage than any other semi-auto. There is no functional difference between the two "types" of weapons.

The AWB is an abomination and I will be glad when it finally takes its last tortured gasp and dies.

Later,

[drdtroit]

57. My first (Frist) thought also! n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

7. kick

[NJmaverick]

8. PEOPLE GREAT TALKING POINT

Yet another example of republicans screwing the American public in favor of special interests. Plus another example of the republicans complete lack of honesty and integrity.

[FatSlob]

11. Based on your post,

I can say that you probably have no idea what the AWB is really about. Prove me wrong and tell me how the return of the following banned features will screw "the American public in favor of special interests".

1. Stocks adjustable for length (collapsable)
2. Bayonet/bipod lug/attachment point
3. Flash reducer/redirector (a device that prevents a large fireball from erupting from the muzzle)
4. Standard capacity detachable box magazines

[NJmaverick]

12. Let me think

Oh yeah the next time some nut job can go into a gun shop and walk out with an AK 47 to fire randomly into a crowd, the public will be screwed. Terrorists now can get their assult weapons legally, so the public will be screwed. Nothing good comes from selling assult weapons to the general public.

[slackmaster]

15. Did you know that you can buy a new semiauto AK right now?

Newly manufactured or imported, just lacking a bayonet mount.

Expiration of the ban won't make diddly squat difference.

Oh yeah the next time some nut job can go into a gun shop and walk out with...

People who have been adjudicated as nut jobs can't buy guns legally now. Expiration of the AW ban won't change that.

[NJmaverick]

17. True but it can not kill as quick as the fully auto model

Besides the real talking point is this: Yet another republican lie.

Frist Defends Refusal To Extend Weapons Ban

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) yesterday defended Congress's refusal to extend the expiring federal ban on assault weapons as reflecting the "will of the American people,"

<Snip>

The most recent national poll, conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, found that 68 percent of Americans wanted to extend the ban, including 57 percent of those with a gun in their household.

[slackmaster]

20. The AW ban has NOTHING TO DO with fully automatic weapons

I'm sorry to see the propaganda being spread by the ban's proponents has affected so many people.

When the ban expires next week it will NOT become easier to buy a fully automatic weapon.

[FatSlob]

33. AWB not related to full auto.

Those were covered under the NFA of 1934, not the AWB of 1994. You are sixty years off.

[DoNotRefill]

137. If gun control is so popular....

why do we keep getting our asses handed to us over it?

"The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it."

Is the person who said that a Republican shill too?

[FatSlob]

36. WTF are you talking about?

I'm now convinced that you are wholly ignorant about the AWB of 1994. The AWB banned the manufacture of standard-capacity magazines and the manufacture of certain pistols. It mainly had to do with cosmetics on rifles, however. It said that an Assault Weapon was a rifle that had more than two of the following:

1. The ability to accept magazines holding more than ten rounds
2. A protruding grip (pistol-style)
3. A bayonet/bipod attachment point
4. A flash reducer/redirector
5. A stock adjustable for length (collapsable)
6. Screw threads on the barrel.

Therefore, the rifle manufacturers merely made the same rifles and chose which two features to keep. In the case of AR-15 rifles, they were banned by name. To stay legal, the manufacturer, Colt's, merely had to change the name and grind off the bipod attachment point, change the flash reducer (which prevents large fireballs from flying out of the muzzle) to a muzzle brake, keep the adjustable stock locked in one position, and stop adding screw threads to the barrel. It actually became cheaper for them to make! The rifles are nearly identical. The AWB of 1994 is an utter failure, and AR-style rifles are now more popular than ever, made by dozens of companies. The full capacity magazines are cheap and in great supply, and life as an AR shooter is grand, and about to get better. I'll be putting on a collapsable stock in just a few days, both because I can, and my wife wants a shorter stock so the rifle fits her better. I'm sorry that you have been sucked in by the lies and half-truths of the gun-ban crowd, I hope I have been helpful in educating you about the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

[DoNotRefill]

136. Yup, that's why the 9/11 highjackers used assault weapons...

and Tim McVeigh used an assault weapon in OKC...

[megaplayboy]

18. okay, here goes

on two of those points:
a collapsible stock= smaller, more easily concealable weapon
"standard capacity detachable magazines" is a pretty disingenuous way to put it. 20, 30, 50, even 100 round magazines exist for some of these weapons. A skilled shooter with one of these weapons and a 30 round clip can empty the clip in only slightly more time than it takes on full auto.
What the heck do you need a 75 or 150 round drum clip for sporting, hunting, home defense or any other legal purpose?
I don't see a 10 round magazine limit as a terrible imposition on anyone's gun rights...

[DoNotRefill]

138. uhhh...

"a collapsible stock= smaller, more easily concealable weapon"

It's still required to have a 16 inch barrel, and a 28 inch overall length. Which is more concealable, a 28 inch rifle weighing 8 pounds, or a 1 pound handgun that can fit in your pocket?

"I don't see a 10 round magazine limit as a terrible imposition on anyone's gun rights..."

how many shootings nation-wide involve more than 10 rounds fired? (for the sake of discussion, and since they're exempt from the AW ban, leave out the times that cops fire more than 10 rounds each)

[Bandit]

35. I really need a bayonet to get a deer all right.

Assault weapons are just that. They are not useful hunting weapons and serve only one purpose. That one purpose has no place in a civilized society. It is a cowards choice and I would hope Americans are better and braver than that.

[FatSlob]

37. It's about freedom.

There are two types of people, those who support individual liberties, and those who do not. Please, be the former.

[Carolab]

160. It's not about FREEDOM

It's about profit. Profit with blood on its hands, JUST LIKE THE DEFENSE INDUSTRIES....

Friday, April 17, 1998
U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths


BY CHELSEA J. CARTER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths.

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

[DoNotRefill]

139. Yup, lots of criminal random drive-by bayonetings going on out there...

Oh, wait....

[MrBenchley]

49. Exactly so....

the Republicans' and pResident Toot's claims to keep America safer are just so much horseshit....

[DoNotRefill]

135. Read this:

"The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it."

How many more seats in Congress are you willing to lose in order to keep pushing a failed experiment? Even the VPC, a rabidly anti-gun group, says that the AW ban was an abject failure.

Before the AW ban was passed, we controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Because we passed the AW ban, we lost control of the House and Senate, and it was a large factor in Gore's defeat in 2000 (remember, if Gore had carried either West Va. or Tenn, two states where gun control and FOID cards were really unpopular) Florida wouldn't have mattered).

Gun Control is a political third rail. It's popular in parts of the Northeast and California, but is the absolute kiss of death in the rest of the country.

[Mrs_Beastman]

13. "will of the American people,"...what BS

[indepat]

16. If only the senior senator from Tennessee would support 1st Amendment

rights half as enthusiastically and energetically as he supports AK-47s on the street....But then he wouldn't be a right-wing wacko.

[underpants]

19. Think of all the MONEY his family's HMO will make

Hell the opportunity for Medicaid fraud is HUGE!

[Beetwasher]

21. Ghouls. As Far As I'm Concerned, Limiting Ownership Of Guns of Any Sort

is a good idea. Unless you're in a militia and protecting the country from invasion, the second ammendment doesn't give anyone the right to own any damn gun they please for any damn reason. We defeated the King of England a long time ago and as far as I know, we're not under threat from any invading hoardes.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What is it with these sickos and their hopped up guns? I'm not for banning all guns, but clearly the second ammendment does NOT do what gun nuts want people to believe it does.

[slackmaster]

22. I agree with you in principle - Where would you draw the line?

I'm happy with the way things are now - Fully automatic weapons and short-barrelled shotguns and a few other categories of arms are strictly regulated. Convicted felons, people adjudicated as insane, spouse abusers under restraining orders, etc. are not allowed to have any guns at all. The pointless AW ban will expire soon, and that won't make any real difference.

I see the biggest problem as lack of enforcement of the good laws we have.

[Beetwasher]

25. I Would Leave It To Law Enforcement Officials To Make That Decision

They are more qualified than me and know more about what is a threat to them and others. It seems to me (I could be wrong though) that many if not most of the largest LE organizations support the AWB, and that's good enough for me.

I would support what LE endorses on any issue related to gun control.

[slackmaster]

27. Here you and I must part company on Constitutional grounds

Separation of powers. Law enforcement answers to the Executive branch of the federal government and AFAIK all state governments.

It's up to Congress and the state legislatures to make laws. The job of law enforcement is only to enforce them.

I do not agree that police are better informed about firearms than I am.

[Beetwasher]

29. I Never Said They Should Make the Laws Or Policy

Or didn't mean to suggest that anyway, I only meant that I would support what they endorse, and it seems I'm not alone in this, not by a long shot. They have every right to take up a position and endorse one policy or even specific legislation. They are after all the experts.

Whether or not they are more "informed" about firearms than you is irrelevant (though I doubt that's true anyway). They are the one's who have to deal with guns being fired at them and they are the one's who are responsible for protecting citizens from guns being fired at them. In some sense, LE is the militia that the second ammendment is talking about(though this could probably be debated to a stand still).

It's only reasonable that their opinions, not yours, would be the most relevant in determining what is and what is not a threat and what is and what is not reasonable in gun control, since they are the one's who would enforce it and they are the one's most threatened. It's plain common sense.

[slackmaster]

30. Sorry I misunderstood you

I agree that LE peoples' input into the legislative process adds value and deserves a fair hearing.

They are after all the experts.

That's kind of an overgeneralization. Did you see LAPD Chief Bratton on Nightline last night? He was way off the mark on facts.

They are the one's who have to deal with guns being fired at them and they are the one's who are responsible for protecting citizens from guns being fired at them.

About three-quarters true. Police do get guns fired at them more than the rest of us; but they are responsible only for enforcing the law, not for protecting us. We have to take some responsibility for our own protection.

...It's plain common sense.

Uh-oh. My common sense does not agree with your common sense.

Either we have to agree to disagree or this discussion will degrade into argumentum ad hominem. You and I are both reasonable people AFAIK. Let's try to keep it cool.

[Beetwasher]

31. Protect and Serve

What makes you think they are not responsible for protecting us???? Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. They most certainly ARE responsible for protecting us. Whether or not they are effective is another argument, but one could certainly argue that their main job IS protecting and serving citizens and the way they do that is by enforcing the law (among other things).

Not trying to get into ad hominems. Me claiming something is common sense is not an ad hominem. You are surely free to disagree with me and I won't call you any names over it, but I still stand by my common sense assertion and mean it as no dig against you.

[slackmaster]

32. Police protect society, not necessarily individuals

Their job is to round up people who are breaking the law, which indirectly protects the rest of us by diluting the pool of possible attackers.

Me claiming something is common sense is not an ad hominem. You are surely free to disagree with me and I won't call you any names over it, but I still stand by my common sense assertion and mean it as no dig against you.

Pardon my defensive attitude here. My viewpoint is in the minority and I often get bashed by others. I do not generally accept anyone's claim that their viewpoint represents common sense.

[Beetwasher]

38. This is Really Not a Matter That's Debatable

They are absolutely, positively supposed to DIRECTLY protect and serve the public AND individuals by interfering w/ criminals in the act of committing crimes as well as rounding them up and "diluting the pool" as it were. They ARE supposed to protect INDIVIDUALS as well as the public in general. Their job is pretty unambiguously to "Protect and Serve" directly AND indirectly BOTH the public in general AND individuals. It's just not debatable. You are redefining the role and the job of the police to serve your argument and it's very specious reasoning on your part.

[slackmaster]

39. Courts have ruled police not liable for failing to protect individuals

"In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social
Services, (3) a boy, who was beaten and permanently injured by his
father, claimed a due process violation because local officials
knew he was being abused but did not act to remove him from his
father's custody. The Supreme Court concluded that the State
had no constitutional duty to protect the boy because the Due
Process Clause is a limitation on the State's power to act, not
a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.
Further, according to the Court, the Due Process Clause confers
no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid
may be necessary to protect an individual against private
violence. (4) In doing so, the Court rejected the argument that
a duty to protect arose because of a "special relationship" that
existed, because the State knew the boy faced a special danger
of abuse and specifically proclaimed by word and deed its
intention to protect him against that danger. (5)


http://www.elastic.org/~fche/mirrors/www.textfiles.com/law/domestiv.law

[Beetwasher]

40. Uhh, This Is VERY Specific To Domestic Violence

Big difference. This ruling is about domestic violence and making arrests or taking custody and a states liability, NOT about directly protecting the individual by STOPPING the violence as it's happening.

If I'm being beaten on the street by a stranger (or even a relative for that matter) and there's a cop around, are you arguing it's not his job to get involved and protect me as an individual? I can't believe that's what you're arguing, but that sure seems to be what you're arguing.

If I'm being held up at gun point and a cop comes by, is it his job to get involved? I can't see how you could answer no to this question and since you can't, then you must agree it's a cops job and duty to direclty protect me as an individual from violence.

Even in a domestic violence case, while they MAY not make an arrest or take custody but they WILL intervene to STOP an ongoing assault. Are you arguing that they won't or they're NOT supposed to? If firearms are involved you can be DAMN sure they will get involved DIRECTLY and INDIVIDUALLY.

The very relevant conclusion:

The cases discussed in this article suggest that as a
general rule, police do not have a constitutionally imposed duty
to protect citizens against domestic violence. While
exceptional circumstances may create such a duty and give rise
to potential liability under Section 1983, lawsuits against the
police for a failure to protect may have a greater likelihood of
success in State court under a State-created duty to protect.
Therefore, law enforcement administrators must decide how to
most effectively allocate limited police resources to protect
all the citizens in their communities.


Sorry, but you are really reaching here.

[slackmaster]

53. How about a specific citation from California state law?

Here is Section 845 of the California Government Code:

845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
police protection service or, if police protection service is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
service....

See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=00001-01000&file=844-846 for the whole chapter.

Your mileage may vary depending on what state you live in. But if you think police are obligated to protect you then you are mistaken.

[Beetwasher]

55. You're Engaging in Semantic Nonsense

Just because they are NOT LEGALLY LIABLE if they fail to do their job does not CHANGE THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION. It just means they are not legally liable if they fail, NOT that it's not their job or duty to protect individuals.

Big difference.

Answer my question: Is it a cops job to intervene if I'm being held at gunpoint? Yes or no.

[slackmaster]

56. You're playing a game of "Yeah, but..."

If they're not legally liable for protecting you then what is their accountability?

Answer my question: Is it a cops job to intervene if I'm being held at gunpoint? Yes or no.

It's not a yes or no question. The officer's duty depends on the specifics of the situation.

A police officer's FIRST responsibility is to protect himself or herself from harm.

The officer's SECOND responsibility is to protect society from the (presumably) crazy criminal with a gun.

If the officer can fulfull the first and second priorities in a manner that saves your life, you are lucky.

Police are by and large good people who try to do the right thing. But if they fail to intervene on your behalf and you get hurt you have no recourse against government for failing to protect you.

[Beetwasher]

59. It Is a Yes or No Question

and it is NOT the officers FIRST responsibility to protect THEMSELVES. Utter nonsense.

You're semantical nonsense is noted and your evasion of answering is telling.

My argument is not about having recourse if they fail to protect, nice attempt at changing the subject.

My argument is it's their job and THEY KNOW IT and YOU know it.

Here's what the NYPD says:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/mission.html

About NYPD
Mission
The Mission of the New York City Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in our City by working in partnership with the community and in accordance with constitutional rights to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment.

Values
In partnership with the community, we pledge to:

Protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens and impartially enforce the law.
Fight crime both by preventing it and by aggressively pursuing violators of the law.
Maintain a higher standard of integrity than is generally expected of others because so much is expected of us.
Value human life, respect the dignity of each individual and render our services with courtesy and civility.

[slackmaster]

62. Your quote from the NYPD supports my position

and it is NOT the officers FIRST responsibility to protect THEMSELVES. Utter nonsense.

See reply #60.

The NYPD site has a pledge and a mission statement, not a job description and not a statement of DUTY or OBLIGATION.

Pursue violators of the law, preserve the peace, provide for a safe environment. i.e. protect society and go after crooks just as I said.

Respect the dignity of each individual; wonderful, but nothing about protecting each and every individual.

[Beetwasher]

64. That's Absurd

A pledge and a mission statement most certainly is their duty and obligation. Are you for real?

Your argument ad absurdum is noted. Providing for a safe environment includes protecting individuals from criminals trying to harming them. Good lord are you stretching. Can they protect every individual all the time? Of course not, no one's making that argument. You're strawman is noted. But it is their job to protect individuals when they can, when they're around, when they see crime happening it's their job to try and stop it as best they can.

To argue otherwise is to argue nonsense.

[slackmaster]

66. I guess you forgot what you posted in #31

"Not trying to get into ad hominems. Me claiming something is common sense is not an ad hominem. You are surely free to disagree with me and I won't call you any names over it."

Asking me if I am "for real" surely sounds like an argumentum ad hominem to ME.

[Beetwasher]

68. Uhh, Yeah, Ok

whatever...If I said, "You're wrong because you're an idiot", that's an ad hominem.

Me asking you if you're for real is not an ad hominem. It's just that I can't believe you're serious because your logic is absurd. I think that perhaps you're playing devils advocate, it was not meant as an insult or an ad hominem.

Why do cops even carry guns or EVER get involved in shootouts w/ criminals? Why does 911 exist? Why do the EVER stop bank robberies or get involved in hostage negotiations if it's not their job? Why do they even respond to calls at all? Yeesh...

I can't tell you how many times I've seen cops get involved directly to protect individuals. I just a slew of cops break up a fight on 42nd st. yesterday. Why would they do that if they didn't have to or feel it's their job AND duty?

Do you know any cops? I know quite a few and they would say you're out of your mind if you think they are not supposed to protect individuals.

[slackmaster]

74. I've never said any of those tasks weren't the JOB of police

Of course it's their job to intervene in criminal situations, but it's not their duty to protect YOU.

[Beetwasher]

79. Yes, It is Their Duty To Protec ME

If they see me being threatened or if they are made aware of a threat to me. They most certainly ARE supposed to do something about that. Can they be sued if they fail? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't change their job.

Is it their job to follow ME around to make sure I come to no harm? No, I never claimed it was and nobody did.

This is what I mean by semantic nonsense.

My point all along has been that it IS their job. Not that they could be held liable if they fail, not that it's consstitutionally mandated, merely that it's their job. And it is.

[slackmaster]

88. But if you call them and they never show up

Or take a very long time to show up, you are on your own.

[Beetwasher]

96. That Still Doesn't Change Their Job Description

Which is to protect the public and ME being a part of that public if I'm in danger.

It's their job and I'll take their word over yours any day about how they can do their job best.

This is what you wrote:

"...but they are responsible only for enforcing the law, not for protecting us."

You're wrong. 100% wrong. Who is "us" if not society or the public? They ARE responsible for protecting US and ME and YOU and any individual under threat or danger, that is HOW they protect society and the public, by protecting the INDIVIDUALS who make up the public. That's why the get paid. Why else do they enforce the law? They do it to protect the public and that includes individuals like ME.

[Xithras]

76. You should really talk to a police officer

I have a couple as friends, and they are pretty blunt on this point. If the decision is between dying in the line of duty and allowing an innocent civilian to die, the civilian gets it every time. The PRIMARY job of a police officer is to APPREHEND criminals after they have committed a crime, so long as that apprehension doesn't put their lives or the lives of the public in undue danger.

The police typically will NOT put themselves into a situation where their lives are in imminent danger...they will allow the perp to kill you and upgrade the charges against him accordingly. In most of the country, only the SWAT team is trained to go into a dangerous situation.

Case in point: Just a couple of months ago we had a situation in a little town where I lived where a PO'd ex boyfriend walked into his ex girlfriends house with a gun, fired a bunch of shots, and took her hostage. What did the police do? They surrounded the house for hours without ever approaching it. He could have easily executed her and her children while the police stood idly by. They wouldn't have let him escape, but they certainly weren't going to put their lives at risk to save her.

[Beetwasher]

81. I Know Plenty Of Cops and I Never Claimed

they should do something stupid like charge into a hostage situation without proper back up.

But none of them would claim that they are NOT supposed to protect individuals from harm if they can. They do it ALL the time and they DO get into shoot outs w/ criminals and they DO interevene to break up fights and disputes and disarm criminals to protect individuals from harm.

[FatSlob]

43. Numerous court cases.

Here is one:

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order" (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 <1982>)

[Beetwasher]

44. Too Bad That's Not My Argument

I never argued that it's a CONSTITUTIONAL right, merely that it's the JOB of the police to protect individuals from criminals. That's part of their job. End of story.

I can't see how any one can argue otherwise. :shrug:

"Protect and Serve" is pretty damn unambiguous.

[FatSlob]

46. Not really. They don't have the responsibility...

to ensure the safety of any one individual. They have the responsibility to ensure it for the community as a whole. Protect and Serve is a motto, and ideal, not reality.

[Beetwasher]

52. Nonsense

If I'm being beaten and a cop comes by, is it his job to intervene?

You know damn well it is. It's his JOB and therefore his RESPONSIBILITY to protect ME as an individual. End of story. This is really not debatable unless you want to make ridiculous semantic distinctions.

Protect and serve is not just a motto, it's their JOB in reality.

Anyone who argues otherwise is engaging in specious, semantic nonsense.

[FatSlob]

124. What a load.

He is under no responsibility to protect you. Police are a reactive force, they are usually there after the crime happens. They are incapable of protecting individuals, as a general rule. Your point, while understood, is wrong.

[Beetwasher]

126. LOL! Really? They're Reactive Only???

That's up there with some of the most ridiculous comments I've heard. Maybe they should have pre-crime arrests??? You get the "No shit sherlock" award of the moment.

Incapable of protecting individuals as a general rule?? Man, where do I begin tearing apart that nonsense...How do you protect the public if you don't protect the INDIVIDUALS that the public is made of? Do you think the public is something else other than a collection of individuals???

Sure, the police are there often after a crime happens, but also often they're there AS it's happening. I guess 911 exists for no reason and the police have never made any arrests or intervened to stop violence and protect individuals as a crime is happening.

How absurd. It happens all the time. I just saw a slew of cops break up a fight and arrest the perpetrators yesterday. But according to you, they didn't have to...They could have just stood by and watched the old guy get the shit beat out of him and done nothing about it and not be held responsible for doing nothing about it because it's not their job.

Cops protect individuals ALL the time as a matter of course. It's understood, as a general rule, that that is PRECISELY their job; to intervene to stop crimes as their being committed (against individuals) if they can.

So, according to you, it's perfectly ok for a cop to stand by and watch someone get shot and do nothing about it because it's not his job to protect the individual?

Do you actually believe this nonsense you spew? I don't think so. I think you just want any excuse to load up on as much ridiculous fire power as you want, so it serves your fantasy to pretend that cops aren't even supposed to protect you as an individual.

You're entitled to your fantasy, but it's still a fantasy.

[Romulus]

131. no fantasy

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

Nobody said it was "OK," but it is the law.

[Beetwasher]

133. That Does NOT Mean

what you think or say it does. It does NOT mean that it's NOT a policeman's job to stop a crime in progress or that that is NOT part of his duty to do so. It means that if they fail, they will not be held liable. There's a significant difference and it makes sense. Police can not be at the scene of every crime and if they allow one case like this to be awarded, then the police can be sued EVERY time a crime is NOT prevented or thwarted, and that's just plain idiotic and counterproductive. But most definitely does NOT mean that they are NOT obligated to try to prevent or thwart a crime in progress or protect individuals. That's a complete and total bastardization of the ruling.

You are misrepresenting the value and meaning of this judgement. What a surprise.

[DoNotRefill]

142. the purpose of the police...

is to show up after the crime has been committed, investigate the crime, assure that the bodies are picked up, and then try to apprehend the suspect, hopefully while not shooting him 41 times.

The police have always been seen as being reactive in nature, not proactive.

Proactive policing is what happens when the cops get a suspect back to the station, and decide to prevent him from recidivating by shoving a broken broomstick up his anus in the bathroom to "teach him respect". And no, I'm not making that up.

[Beetwasher]

149. How Silly and Foolish

Perhaps we should engage in pre-crime arrests?

Yes or no, if a cop sees a crime being pepetrated is it his obligation to intervene? The answer is yes, and you know damn well it is. Protecting citizens is their job and that includes individuals like you and me.

They may be mostly reactive, but that's only because they're not psychic. But a cop on the beat is a PROACTIVE measure. Any cop patrolling is being PROACTIVE. And cops PROACTIVELY stop criminals in the process of committing crimes quite often. I guess you never saw the TV show "Cops".

It's idiotic to suggest that a cop is not obligated to protect individuals and it's only a looney talking point that gun nuts use to justify their loading up on any and all ridiculous fire power.

I dare you to discuss your attitude about cops to a cops face. You'll be lucky if you don't walk away w/ a broom up your ass.

[DoNotRefill]

152. Beet....if you only knew....

eom...

[Beetwasher]

154. Uh, Yeah, Cryptic Statements

Mean that your full of shit...

If I only knew what? That your a cop and you don't give a shit about performing your job properly?

[Romulus]

51. more info for you

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#4

(no other info on the main site, since my employer blocks access to any webpage dealing with firearms)

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." <4> There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. <5>

*snip*

One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. <11> A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York's high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." <12>

*snip/more

(Notes)

4. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

5. See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

11. Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958).

12. Riss, Ibid.

[Beetwasher]

54. This Is Silly Semantic Nonsense

Put forth by a pro-gun website.

Just because someone is unable to sue the police when they fail to do their job properly, does NOT mean that their job is any different.

If I'm being held up at gun point and a cop comes along, is it his job to intervene? You know damn well it is. End of story.

[Romulus]

58. hey, you asked the question

sorry you don't like the answer . . .

If that hypothetical LEO believes that he should wait for backup before intervening, you'll still be held up and SOL. And there would be no legal recourse for you against the police for not intervening, despite the fact the LEO was right there.

edited to add:
"Society" is people getting along by living under certain rules. If there is no legal recourse (i.e., appeal to enforcement of those societal rules), then there is no societal rule supporting your claim.

[slackmaster]

60. Recent example - Poor guy with a collar bomb in PA last year

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/pizza_deaths030902.html

He died because the police declined to risk their lives by intervening. The bomb went off while they were waiting for the bomb squad, which unfortunately didn't get there in time.

The police did exactly what they were supposed to do. They are not obligated to take heroic measures to try to save the life of an individual. They protected THEMSELVES and they protected SOCIETY by putting the poor man in a place where the bomb wouldn't hurt anyone else.

[Beetwasher]

63. There was nothing they could do

So what? Your example is ridiculous.

They certainly saw it as their job to PROTECT the any other individuals who might have been harmed by the bomb.

It's a LEO's job to protect individuals from harm. Do they fail? Sure they do, but it doesn't change their job description.

[slackmaster]

65. There is plenty they could have done

They could have taken a Sawzall to that collar and tried to get it off the guy. They probably all would have died.

They certainly saw it as their job to PROTECT the any other individuals who might have been harmed by the bomb.

They protected everyone including themselves.

It's a LEO's job to protect individuals from harm. Do they fail? Sure they do, but it doesn't change their job description.

You've hit the nail on the head. It's their JOB but not their DUTY to protect individuals. There are good reasons for having the system work that way, but it puts us as individuals in the situation of having NOBODY accountable for protecting us from harm.

[Beetwasher]

67. How Silly

They had no idea what the device was on the guy or what would happen if they touched it or tried to get it off.

Why do cops EVER engage in shootouts with criminals then? Why do they even carry guns? Your arguments are absurd.

You are engaging is semantic nonsense because you know you're wrong.

It's their job but not their duty??? They seem to think differently.

I understand why gun nuts take this attitude, they ferevently want to believe no one is out there protecting them and therefore they have to have as much firepower as possible.

The police feel otherwise. I'll stay on the side of the police.

[slackmaster]

75. Police carry guns for TWO reasons

1. To defend themselves, fellow officers, and the public against violent criminals, and

2. As a means of pursuading criminal suspects to give themselves up peacefully.

[Beetwasher]

84. Uhh, yeah, that's my point

"1. To defend themselves, fellow officers, and the public against violent criminals, and"

Now, unless you want to define "the public" as something other than a collection of individuals, you made my point. How do you defend the public without defending the individuals of which the public is made?

You can't.

[slackmaster]

87. Yes, yes, and sort of

The public (a.k.a. the people) have a right to defend themselves just as police officers do.

Now, unless you want to define "the public" as something other than a collection of individuals, you made my point. How do you defend the public without defending the individuals of which the public is made?

You can't.

Likewise you cannot protect the right of the people (the public) to keep and bear arms without protecting the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Because the police, despite their dedication and sense of duty and best efforts, CANNOT always be there to defend individuals from harm, it makes sense to protect the right of individuals to have effective means of self-defense available. The same tools that the police use to defend themselves and the public.

[Beetwasher]

97. Except that "right" doesn't exist

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Maybe it makes sense for individuals to have that "right", but they don't (at least as far as the constitution is concerned), unless they are part of a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state. As I've said before, I could argue that LE serves that function. Do they do it perfectly? No, but nothing's perfect.

Do people have the de-facto right in reality to bear arms? Yeah, they do, but it's not constitutionally protected, nor doesn it mean anyone can or should own any damn gun they want for any damn reason. But now we're back at the beginning aren't we? Where is the line drawn?

I'll take LE's word on what and what is not proper and safe as far as gun control instead of the word someone who thinks LE isn't even necessarily supposed to protect individuals from violent attacks. They would know better than me what is dangerous and where to draw the line and I'll take their word for it.

[slackmaster]

98. You are misconstruing what I've been saying

I'll take LE's word on what and what is not proper and safe as far as gun control instead of the word someone who thinks LE isn't even necessarily supposed to protect individuals from violent attacks.

I've never said they weren't supposed to protect individuals from violent attacks. I said they aren't obligated to.

They would know better than me what is dangerous and where to draw the line and I'll take their word for it.

Suit yourself.

[Beetwasher]

100. Of Course Theyre Obligated. Are YOU Obligated To Do The Job YOUR Paid For?

Maybe they're not constitutionally mandated to protect us, but they're certainly paid to do a job which includes protecting and serving the public (which includes protecting the individuals, of which the public is made, from harm), so they most certainly ARE obligated to do that job if they accept it. They're hired and paid to protect and serve the public, therefore, they most certainly ARE obligated to do just that.

Unless of course you think no one is obligated to do anything or you have some weird definition of what an obligation is. Again, ridiculous semantic games.

[MrBenchley]

106. And bear in mind

there's no reason someone who's under the mistaken impression that the cops are not obligated needs an assault weapon to protect himself from imaginary boogymen....

[slackmaster]

107. If they're obligated, why can't people sue them when they fail?

Please explain what you mean. I've already proved that (at least in California) police cannot be sued for failing to act no matter how badly they screw up.

If I make a mistake that adversely affects one of my company's customers we can be sued. That's obligation and accountability.

[Beetwasher]

110. What The Hell Does Suing Have to Do w/ Anything???

How ludicrous. And besides, police DO get sued, all the time. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. If they don't do their jobs properly, they can also get fired. THAT'S accountability. The police are in a unique position in which they can't be thinking about lawsuits all the time when they have to act, so the courts do go out of their way to protect them from these types of lawsuits, but it doesn't stop them altogether and they still occur.

The case you cited had to do w/ domestic disturbances, NOT with actively intervening to STOP a violent act in progress.

I'm not going to go and look for court cases in which the police have lost, it's irrelevant and I'm not going to waste my time.

You've already admitted it's their job, and if it's their job, they ARE obligated to perform it. To argue otherwise is to redefine the word obligation.

[Romulus]

112. lost cause, but I'll try yet again

sure police get successfully sued,

but not for failing to protect any individual citizen from crime.

As for the accountability you keep talking about, that's to their supervisors, not to the citizen who was injured.

[Beetwasher]

115. Uhhh, What?

The cops most certainly are held accountable to the citizens who pay their salaries. What planet do you live on? Their supervisors are held accountable by THEIR bosses and it goes up the chain to elected officials who are accountable to, that's right, THE PUBLIC. Duh...

Some LE positions are actually elected, like Sherrifs. If they decide to stop protecting individuals, guess what? The get fired, NOT sued.

[Romulus]

116. great

the next time someone you know there in Gothom gets mugged, have them demand that the beat officer in that area be fired for failing to stop the mugging.

Edited to add:See how far that campaign goes.


There's nothing more to say to you, so have a good one and remember to vote for Kerry.

[Beetwasher]

117. If The Officer Stood by and Watched It Happen, He WOULD be Fired

You're damn right he would be.

Of course you have nothing more to say, all you have is ridiculous strawmen and semantic nonsense.

Police are not obligated to do the job they're paid to do? I've heard some ridiculous things in my life, and that's up there.

[slackmaster]

119. It's how people get compensated when a contract is broken

And besides, police DO get sued, all the time. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

Please don't move the goalpost. Sure they get sued for harassment and divorce and all the other things ordinary people get sued for, but not for failure to provide police protection to anyone.

If they don't do their jobs properly, they can also get fired. THAT'S accountability.

Yes, I can get fired for not doing my job properly too. But I can get sued for that as well.

The case you cited had to do w/ domestic disturbances, NOT with actively intervening to STOP a violent act in progress.

I also cited a California statute that gives police blanket protection against being sued for failing to provide police protection.

I'm not going to go and look for court cases in which the police have lost, it's irrelevant and I'm not going to waste my time.

Of course it would be a waste of time. Citizens don't have standing to sue police for failing to do their duty.

You've already admitted it's their job, and if it's their job, they ARE obligated to perform it. To argue otherwise is to redefine the word obligation.

I can see this discussion is going around in circles. If you wish to believe the police are obligated to protect you individually that's your prerogative.

Good day.

[Beetwasher]

120. They're Accountable Because they Can LOSE their Jobs

They are accountable to the public that pays their salaries. If they STOP protecting individuals from crime, they lose their jobs. What's so hard to understand about that? That's ultimate accountability. We're not talking about a contract being broken, we're talking about accountability for failing to do your job and that means you get fired by your bosses (The public in this case), NOT sued by a client.

You are the one trying to redefine the word "obligation" and moving the goal posts by saying "well, why can't they be sued!" That's ludicrous and you know it.

I know why you want to believe the police are not obligated to protect you. You think it gives you an excuse to load up on any firepower you want. You're entitled to believe that, but you're wrong.

Go argue your point with the law enforcement agencies who define their jobs as protecting and serving the public, and that includes protecting individuals from crime. Or, better yet, go argue your point w/ some police officers. You may walk away from that argument with them really deciding NOT to protect YOU personally. My friends on the force take their jobs seriously and most (all that I know and it's quite a few) certainly do feel obligated to protect individuals and would be quite insulted by your attitude.

[DoNotRefill]

143. Hmmm...so would you care to explain the actions of...

the "school resource officer" (a sworn law enforcement official) who was inside Columbine High School when the shooting started?

His response to the shooting? He ran away, ostensibly "to call it in". Last I heard, he was still on the job.

[Romulus]

111. think what you want

you say one thing, every court in the US and the California legislature can say something else.

And the Constitution has nothing to due with their lack of duty/obligation to Beetwasher to personally protect Beetwasher from crime.

[Beetwasher]

114. Me and the Police Themselves Say the Same Thing

I think they know their jobs better than you do.

The court cases cited merely say the cops may not be liable if they fail to protect someone, that doesn't mean they're NOT obligated to do so anymore than I'm not obligated to do the job I'm paid to do. If I don't do my job, I get fired, NOT sued.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. It's a ridiculous strawman.

The police are not my personal bodyguards, but they are supposed to protect the PUBLIC FROM CRIME. That includes the INDIVIDUALS that the public consists of. How absurd.

[DoNotRefill]

146. You need a tort class on duty....

and I think you might be surprised by the creds of some of the people you're arguing with...

[Beetwasher]

150. Uh, No, You Need To Face Reality

And talk to a cop and tell him he's not obligated to protect individuals.

You'd be surprised at the reaction you get.

[DoNotRefill]

151. ROTFLMAO!!! Hey Beetwasher...

care to wager on if Romulus and I have the term "officer" in our job descriptions? Care to wager if we both had to be "sworn in"?

Somehow, I doubt that you can say the same...

[Beetwasher]

153. I Could Care Less

How does that make any difference? If you claim to be an officer, you're not a very good one if you think protecting the public is not a part of your job.

I'm the pope. :shrug: Prove I'm not.

Pathetic attempt at changing the subject.

[Beetwasher]

61. Legal Recourse Is Irrelevant

It's their job and semantic wriggling on your part is only meant to change the subject.

My local police:


About NYPD
Mission
The Mission of the New York City Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in our City by working in partnership with the community and in accordance with constitutional rights to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment.

Values
In partnership with the community, we pledge to:

Protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens and impartially enforce the law.
Fight crime both by preventing it and by aggressively pursuing violators of the law.
Maintain a higher standard of integrity than is generally expected of others because so much is expected of us.
Value human life, respect the dignity of each individual and render our services with courtesy and civility.

--snip--

So sorry if YOU don't like what the police have to say about their own jobs, but that's pretty clear that THEY view it as part of their jobs to protect the lives of their fellow citizens.

[Romulus]

69. go ahead and believe what you want

Sure, they take the oath and all, but the rules of our society say they don't have any further obligation to protect Beetwasher from direct harm.

And it's no semantics.

[Beetwasher]

71. "Rules of Our Society Say"

Yeah, ok, not semantics.

I guess their oaths and all are not part of the "rules of our society".

Why even bother wearing a gun or getting involved at all then? Why ever break up fights, get into shootouts, stop muggings etc. if they don't have to. Maybe they just put their lives on the line daily to protect individuals for the kicks and the great paycheck.

I guess their idea about what their job is supposed to be is irrelevant as far as the "rules of our society" are concerned as well.

[Romulus]

72. oaths = "I really, really promise to ____"

If I understand you right, you are saying the police are hired to protect "us," and you are right.

However, where you, me, and Slack disagree is on how "us" is defined in our society.

Are the police "expected" by citizens to stop a crime in progress that the police see? Sure. But they have no other obligation beyond job security to follow up on that expectation.

Look at the DC and NYC case in my prior post.

I'm not bashing police here; my brother's a police officer. I'm just pointoing out how our society has divided up the responsibilities concering our individual well being.

[Beetwasher]

83. Yet they DO do it ALL the time (or quite often)

They DO disarm criminals who are threatening individuals. They DO break up fights. They do draw their weapons and they do use them and they do it to protect individuals ALL THE TIME. It's their job and they know it.

Does that mean that they should do something stupid without proper back up? Of course not.

[wuushew]

85. Exactly

not to mention that the most appropriate time to apprehend said criminal is while in the attempt or act of carrying out a crime. If law enforcement was to wait until after the fact as some here claim that would be complicating their own given mandate.

Also if we were to carry out their logical farce to the extreme was not 9/11 a crime against mearly 3,000+ individuals? When does a group of individuals become large enough or rich enough to warrant a label of protectining society?

Since a criminal who commmits one crime may go on to commit another against others in SOCITEY, is it not in our best interest to intervene in the here and now?

[op6203]

122. Which LE do you support?

Not ALL LEO's are supportive of the AWB. Most cops in my jurisdiction are pro-gun.

I'm a Deputy Sheriff, and again, I'm not worried about the AWB expiring in a few days. Actually, I'm glad it's over. In a few days, I can put a collapsable stock on my patrol rifle (it will fit in a smaller case and take up less room in my car, plus it will fit my shoulder better when wearing a vest and heavy coat in this winter). It's still going to be the same gun, just a different stock.

The ONLY thing that the ban REALLY did was limit magazine capacity, which is still not much of an issue to me. High-cap mags are still available (because they were made before the ban) and a mag swap only takes a couple seconds. My duty weapon has a 10 round mag in it (see how much that must worry me?).

OP

[Beetwasher]

123. I Didn't Say They ALL Were

But I do belive (I could be wrong) that most of the more influential and largest of the organizations that represent LEO's DO support the ban, and I'll take their word on it that it's a good idea.

I'll take these people's word over anonymous posters on the internet any day as well as the word of my friends on the force:

Law Enforcement Steering Committee, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation.

[op6203]

125. Those large organizations....

...are all into politics. I haven't heard of most of those organizations, but I'll go ahead and trust you, an anonymous poster.

Here's another one:
Law Enforcement Alliance of America (www.leaa.org)

Quoted from their website:
"The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) is the nation's largest non-profit, non-partisan coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens united for justice.
<snip>

LEAA is dedicated to :
* focus the political debate on criminal behavior and criminal punishment
* communicate the shared opinion of the majority of law enforcement officers that gun control is not an effective method of crime control
* supporting legislation that helps target and punish criminals and protects law enforcement"


There's a source other than an "anonymous poster".

So guess what - not all LE organizations agree on gun laws.

OP

[Beetwasher]

128. So What? As I said, I never said they did, but MOST do

and I'll take their opinion over yours any day.

As for politics, I don't see your point. I guess the NRA is humanitarian organization? LOL!

You claim to be in LE and you've never heard of the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association??? Uhh, yeah, ok, whatever...

[op6203]

129. Good grief.

If you'll read my last post, I said "I haven't heard of MOST...". Of course I've heard of the FOP, but I'm not a member. I know nothing of the "National" Sheriff's Assoc., but have heard plenty of my state's Sheriff's Assoc.

You don't have to believe I'm a cop. I just posted a website from a "large LE organization" - which is not "an opinion", it's their stance.

Look, I'm not bashing you or calling you names, so please be civil.

OP

[Beetwasher]

130. I Apologize

if you think I'm not being civil, but I ALSO said very clearly that I NEVER said ALL LE organizations supported the ban, only that MOST did. So, I guess we're even in "misunderstanding" or "misrepresenting" what the other person said.

I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it that you're a cop.

I'm curious though why you think these organizations that represent YOU would be supportive of the ban if it's meaningless or ineffective? Yeah, yeah, I know politics...But HOW so? What would be the point? How would they gain politically? Do you really think they see no value whatsoever in the ban and they have something else to gain by supporting it?

[op6203]

132. That's cool.

I now realize my mistake in the ALL / MOST misunderstanding. Sorry about that.

I really don't see much, if any, value in the AWB. I think the politics is more of a "I'll scratch your back..." type thing. I really don't know, but it seems most Unions prefer a Democrat in office, and in turn, back him/her up on their stance on gun control. Usually the Chief says what his boss (the mayor) wants to hear. If the Mayor is anti-gun, the "police dept" stance will be anti.

I personally prefer stronger enforcement of existing laws (all the way through the process!).

Again, I'm not expert in politics, that's just how I see it.

OP

[Beetwasher]

134. Fair Enough!

I happen to know a lot of officers on the job and pretty much all of them think the AWB is a good thing. :shrug:

[Tight_rope]

147. The Repukes have gone mad!

[truthisfreedom]

24. if frist trusts the people with assault weapons he should trust the people

with drugs of any kind as well. if you're going to be liberal about allowing something that kills tens of thousands of people every year, you might as well not stop with the killing machines... allow the pain-killers as well.

[DoNotRefill]

140. Ummm....tens of thousands?

in order to come up with that figure, you have to count the 16,000 suicides by gun annually. (homicides are currently around 8,000 per year, and accidental gun deaths well under a thousand a year) And if you're saying that gun suicide is a problem, then isn't all suicide a problem? Are you against the right to die?

BTW, I support the repeal of most, if not all, drug prohibition laws. Put the violent in jail, not the kid busted with three buds. Prohibition laws have never worked, be it alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, or gun prohibition.

[davhill]

26. Turn America into a Faluja?

Could it be that the hard liners are preparing to take arms in the case of a Democratic victory?

[slackmaster]

28. Expiration of the ban won't make it any easier to acquire arms

The sky is not falling.

[TheDonkey]

34. trying to save shrub's ass

so he doesn't sign it and piss off the KKK and confederate wing of the republican party

[Cicero]

50. So opposition to the AWB is equivalent to being in the KKK?

And that's just the Republicans! I wonder how you would portray your fellow Democrats who also oppose the AWB.

Later,

[chiburb]

82. I note the use of "your" fellow Democrats in your post...

I assume you are not a Democrat? You want no gun control, you want no TIFs... you seem to be a Libertarian, is that right? If so, don't THEY have a message board too?
Just askin'...

[FeebMaster]

86. Why would his saying

"your fellow Democrats" not include himself?

[chiburb]

91. Have you visited his blog?

[FeebMaster]

94. Nope. (nt)

[Cicero]

93. In this case, chiburb has probably been to my blog site...

...since he mentions my opposition to TIFs. I also mention there that I am a Libertarian.

I do not hide my party affiliation. And I like coming here instead of going to Freeperville. Ya'll are a lot closer to my beliefs than the freepers.

As to a specific "Libertarian Underground", as it were, I don't know of any, but would like to find out.

Later,

[chiburb]

95. Fair enough, I don't run this place or enforce this aspect of DU:

"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole."

I DO wonder if other DUers would call Libertarians "progressive" though.

Like I say, not my table... just asking.

[Joanne98]

48. I'm not for gun control anymore because of Asscroft but........

The police vs the Republicans is really GOOD news. :)

[bobbyboucher]

73. Yeah! Banana clips all around!

Now I can really slaughter those beer cans. It's soooo cool. You should see me obliterate that watermelon. Why should I give up my right to destroy inanimate objects just because some bad guy might slaughter an office building full of fellow employees.

Come on, let's all get us some weapons and put some holes in something.

YEEEEEEEEHAW!

[Radius]

78. BTW

Those have been available for the ENTIRE length of the ban.
The ban does nothing except make people who have no concept of firearms feel warm and fuzzy.

[wuushew]

89. What is your definition of banana clip?

The one in my mind is that of a large capacity magazine that for engineering or usability reasons is curved in shape. Are these not covered under the ban?








SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(t)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

`(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to--

`(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency of the United States or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) a lawful transfer or lawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was lawfully possessed before the effective date of this subsection other than a transfer by a licensed dealer; or

`(C) the transfer or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.

(b) LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE DEFINED- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means--

`(i) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and

`(ii) any combination of parts from which a device described in clause (i) can be assembled, but

`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

(c) LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES DEFINED AND TREATED AS FIREARMS- Section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence--

(1) by striking `or'; and

(2) by striking `device.' and inserting `, or (E) any large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(d) PENALTY- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(d), is amended by striking `or (s)' and inserting `(s), or (t)'.

(e) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.'.

[Radius]

92. Grandfathered

Only new ones. Millions of these things were and are available on the open market.

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/cb/cb.asp?a=151267
http://www.sksman.com/access/AK47%20magazines.html

The ban was and is a joke..

[bobbyboucher]

102. Your goddamn right they are out there, and I got plenty.

You should have seen me unload on this gas can the other day.

KABLUUUUWWEEEEEEEE!

Man, I about creamed my levis. Going out tomorrow, my bud has some old 32 OZ glass Coke bottles he's been saving. Man o man, we are gonna have us a goodin.

[Radius]

104. Riight, enjoy. (NT)

[bobbyboucher]

99. I with you brother, I snuggle up to my Uzi every night,

I lick it sometimes just to taste the cold steel. I ain't no girlie-man gun-hater, I'm a True American Gun Nut.

[FeebMaster]

101. Is it a real full-auto Uzi?

or just some semi-auto clone with a really long barrel?

[bobbyboucher]

103. All I know is it shoots em real fast.

And it's made of cold blue steel. It's my honey.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbyboucher]

121. Wrong again,

I'm not disrupting anyone except idiotic gunbots, and they aren't exactly DUs target audience, but they do however come here to troll themselves. (see your own definition)

I, on the other hand, was being sarcastic, but nonetheless denouncing the weapons ban going dark, which should have been obvious to all with a sense of humor, which is not trolling, it is expressing an opinion held by the majority on this board.

Whining gunbots are characitures of themselves, hence my gunbot alter-ego.

YEEEEEEHAW! Let's go shooooot sum fish.

[John219]

141. Well the following polls would disagree

Here they are and it would appear that most people support the AW ban expiring:

__repeatvote_912.htm

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/3713150/detail.html
Yes. Military-style firearms should be banned. 4851 29%
No. People have the right to own any firearm they want. 11998 71%


http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/3713166/detail.html
Should Congress renew the federal ban on assault weapons?
Choice Votes Percentage of 16844 Votes
Yes. Military-style firearms should be banned. 4851/29%
No. People have the right to own any firearm they want. 11993/71%


http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/10738.exclude.html

I would be interested in the like that says 69% of America supports the AWB.
John

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

144. What possible need does anyone have

for a 100-round clip?

Like Gen. Wesley Clark has said, we have a place for you in the military.

The current law limits clips to 10 rounds...

Seems to be working here in W. PA, the number of automatic weapon incidents has dropped significantly over the past several years.

[FeebMaster]

145. Actually the law

"The current law limits clips to 10 rounds..."

limits newly manufactured magazines to 10 rounds. There are tens upon tens of millions of magazines currently being bought and sold with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.


Seems to be working here in W. PA, the number of automatic weapon incidents has dropped significantly over the past several years.

You think that has something to do with the AWB? Interesting since the AWB has nothing to do with automatic weapons. The AWB only affects semi-auto weapons and even then it only prevents them from being manufactured with certain features. Fully-automatic weapons, of course, have been heavily regulated since 1934.

[MrBenchley]

148. Ain't it swell to see "pro gun democrats" pimping for Bill Frist?

The plain fact is that the AWB worked very well...which is why the gun lobby wants to get rid of it, and keep it from coming up for renewal.

[kwolf68]

155. it is beautiful

The gun nuts love of their guns surpasses anything else. They believe GUNS, and lots of them are true representations of freedom and even if it was proven that ease of access to guns causes deaths of innocents these people will NOT budge.

The only thing they see is “I want my guns…Gimme Gimme Gimme”

To be honest, I don’t know how successful our gun control measures are, because we still sure have a lot of crime, but I do KNOW one thing…Of all the tumultuous situations I have been in ever since I was old enough to get mad, I’ve had arguments, been in skirmishes, etc…I can’t think of one instance where the presence of a gun would have made the situation better.

I am not against the 2nd amendment. I realize that isn’t feasible. However, I am against the glorification of deification of the fucking GUN…an instrument with one purpose: TO KILL.

We have a shortage of health care, a shortage of good food in some parts of the world, a shortage of clean water in some places…but we never have a shortage of guns.

If a few people get blasted away then its all in the name of freedom.

[MrBenchley]

156. As I said elsewhere, it's hard to do anything but laugh

about people so wrapped up in horseshit that they claim their own argument is childish and superficial. If the Assault Weapons Ban was really "only cosmetics" what does it say about someone arguing that he NEEDS those cosmetics?

And of course, if it was popular with anyone but lunatics and criminals, you wouldn't find scum like Frist and DeLay hiding behind this procedural excuse.

[DoNotRefill]

158. Yup, praise for the AWB is universal.....

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/USofAWSectionOne.pdf

Read that first paragraph and tell us how effective the ban is. Note that it comes from a rabidly anti-gun group, the VPC.

[DoNotRefill]

157. WooHoo!!!

Benchley finally drops the "Pimping for Bill Frist" bomb!!!

Par-TAY!!!!!

:crazy: