"In all of the debate about the right to own and carry guns, the safety of the public and the officers is getting lost in the discussion"...[More]No it's not, you liar.
I am safer when I am armed. And I don't need your damned permission, servant. The discussion is not about your safety, it's about ours. That's ostensibly the reason you receive a paycheck--and were required to swear an oath before anyone agreed to that.
You don't like it, find another host to attach yourself to.
Yo, Wyomingans or Wyomans or Wyominites or whatever you call yourselves--this kind of crap isn't supposed to be happening there. Stomp it out. get on it, spread the word and stomp it the hell out.
Don't relax because you think you've got it better than everyone else. That's the way this stuff spreads. Remove polyps while they're still benign.
9 comments:
About the only thing the only ones need saving from, is donuts. Oh, and me, should the Big Change come about. Officer safety? What the hell is that, when one of them gets tackled in their own end zone with the ball?
no kidding. i thought wyoming was the land of the three S's. and who pays this guy to talk like that? four police chiefs and two sheriffs?
Hessian: "The Constitution does not prohibit convicted felons, fugitives from justice, drug addicts, adjudicated mental defectives, illegal aliens, those who have been dishonorably discharged from the service, those who have renounced their U.S. citizenship, documented stalkers, and those who have been convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms.
Is it your view, then, that the laws that do are unconstitutional and should be abolished?"
Yes, that is exactly my view. It is also my view that I am free to shoot any of them between the eyes if they threaten my existence.
froid: "People must prove competency to obtain a drivers' license People with revoked licenses surely do drive anyway, but should we rescind licensing laws for motor vehicles because criminals will drive anyway? That's the logic of the proponents of abolishing concealed weapon permit requirements. That makes no sense."
Motor vehicle licensing laws and driver's licenses are two entirely different things. Vehicle licensing is about property taxes and road-building. Driver's licenses are about the competency of drivers under the age of 21 and the physical capability of drivers over the age of 65.
Hessian and froid don't seem to understand what "malum prohibitum" laws are. To quote Wikipedia:
"Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories, "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum." The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).
"Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952))
All of the issues raised by Hessian and froid involve "malum prohibitum" laws. None of the laws prevent drivers from driving without licenses, or criminals from carrying guns. Firearm licensing laws are about the state's control of firearms owners. In Wyoming, the state's hand is light, but in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, the state is brutal, and in all states the laws are unconstitutional. In no case does licensing of gun owners in any way deter criminals from committing violent crime. In every case, requiring drivers to take driving tests to prove competency improves road safety. The two issues are completely unrelated.
Forgot to mention that the previous comment was my response two posters on the newspaper's forum.
"Remove polyps while they're still benign."
Well said, David. I'm not so sure they're benign, though. The attitude seems clear: "What are you bitching for? We're [revelation moment here] letting you have your guns if you ask..." That is NOT "gettin' it".
There's another aspect to your comment "I am safer when I am armed", as well: the cops are safer when you are armed, too. That is true for two reasons. One, since you're a decent person, you represent a handy resource that an actual peace officer could count on in an actual emergency. Plenty of people point this out.
Two--and this is the part that the enforcers don't get--they're simply a lot safer when they're not trying to disarm the peaceably armed. Jeff Cooper used to love to say about buffalo: the first time you approach a buff, he will move. He may even do it a second time. The third time, he may not move--away.
And don't forget the dampening effect a Vt. style carry law has on cops who are not as peaceable as they should be with the average citizen. That also, makes them safer as well as me. You know the old saying, "don't start shit, there won' be any".
I routinely comment over at this rag, if only to sometimes annoy the nuts from Jackson. Thanks for the heads up in this David, I'll be heading over there soon to drop my 2 bits on them.
On a related note, I should point out that on any loosening of gun law, either at the state or national level, this papers editorial staff has routinely been against it. They tend to couch their arguement in the old "We support gun rights, but..." vein. They editorialized against may issue when it was brought up, they were against shall issue when it was brought up, they managed to sway opinion on Castle Doctrine to the point that WY's SYG law is but a shadow of what it's intended purpose is, and they came out vehemently against the National Park rule change and legislation.
They also (I believe you also covered this a few weeks back) came out agains BOTH Firearms Freedom Acts introduced this legislative term.
Make of this what you will, but they are most definitely as NOT pro gun as they would have you believe.
Quote from the article:
“Wyoming lawmakers would effectively remove the ability of officers to quickly determine if someone who is carrying a weapon is legally entitled to.”
I would hope to shout! “The right of the people … shall not be infringed.”
Just what the hell does this idiot think that phrase means? And, just why does he think the 1st Congress included the phrase in the 2nd Amendment?
[W-III]
Perhaps "nascent" is a better word than "benign," David.
Post a Comment