Ban full and semi autos now!!!

**Scrapper** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 2:28pm

McClaw,

I have a Moisin Nagant that was made in 1943. Shoots great. Most guns will last certain number of rounds before they need service, but not years. if you regularly service a weapon, it can last decades.

If you don't it could be useless in a few years.

**Phrost** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 2:46pm

Has anyone mentioned that the #2 most deadly mass shooting in history was done by a police officer in a country which pretty much bans civilian firearm ownership?

What about the fact that the only crime ever committed with a fully automatic "machine gun" on the national registry in the last 30 years, was also done by a police officer.

What about how the Supreme Court decided several years ago that the police have no duty, whatsoever, to protect you?

**Rock Ape** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 2:48pm

Originally Posted by Phrost

What about how the Supreme Court decided several years ago that the police have no duty, whatsoever, to protect you?

How does that work then mate ?

If they have no duty to protect, what exactly are they responsible for ?

**ChenPengFi** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 2:59pm

Originally Posted by Rock Ape

How does that work then mate ?

If they have no duty to protect, what exactly are they responsible for ?

They are to catch criminals and uphold the law.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=34199

**wetware** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 3:00pm

Originally Posted by Rock Ape

How does that work then mate ?

If they have no duty to protect, what exactly are they responsible for ?

In some cases, revenue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulia,_Texas

**Rock Ape** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 3:12pm

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

They are to catch criminals and uphold the law.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=34199

This is where I loose context.

If murder or rape (just to pick a couple of serious crimes) are against the law, how then can Police be beyond the responsibility of protecting the public toward whom those crimes would be against?

**huge** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 3:29pm

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

Have you seen how fast those guys can toss kegs?? Seriously though the only point of that was to show you that anything can be demonized and fear mongered.

Oh, I'm aware.

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

The real question is where do you draw the line on weapon bans?? How far is too far?? A police state is pretty safe, but most people don't want to live in one.

If you're asking me personally, I don't believe in banning anything. I believe in personal responsibility. I'm very much against a nanny state. The last thing this world needs is more rules.

I don't have to think about gun control very often, as I live in Canada. We have gun control debates every now and then, but they're very different from what I see in the USA. Ours are mostly about gun registries. It's interesting to see what people with a more vested interest in the debate than I do have to say about it. I usually wouldn't insert myself into a gun debate on the internet, I was just compelled to this morning.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 3:43pm

Originally Posted by Rock Ape

How does that work then mate ?

If they have no duty to protect, what exactly are they responsible for ?

Welcome to America, the land of the free and the home governed by the stupid!

**ChenPengFi** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 3:45pm

Originally Posted by Rock Ape

This is where I loose context.

If murder or rape (just to pick a couple of serious crimes) are against the law, how then can Police be beyond the responsibility of protecting the public toward whom those crimes would be against?

"Litigation", they are not "responsible" is my understanding.
They are to uphold the law and arrest criminals; if they catch a murderer they have done their job, same for arresting someone committing that crime.
That does not imply "protecting" anyone, oddly enough.
The victims could already be dead, but the police have upheld their duty.

Another look into another court opinion, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y. 2d (1968), brings forth a major question in regards to the police and their ability to be held responsible for neglectful actions.

“Is a municipality liable for failure to provide special police protection to a member of the public who was repeatedly threatened with personal harm and eventually suffered injuries for lack of protection? ”

Of course, the courts stated “No” and upheld the appeals court ruling on the matter. Here we can see, that again the courts affirmed, that the people have no “right” to be protected.

http://www.copblock.org/10032/to-pro...e-and-collect/

**Diesel_tke** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 3:55pm

Originally Posted by TheMightyMcClaw

Tangential question for those of you who collect guns:
Do firearms have the whole planned in obsolescence thing like computers and cars? Like, will a firearm likely cease functioning ten years after it was made, or can they be easily maintained into perpetuity?

I have a shotgun that I squirrel hunt with. It was given to my father when he was about 12. The action is a little loose, but still works great!

Originally Posted by Rock Ape

This is where I loose context.

If murder or rape (just to pick a couple of serious crimes) are against the law, how then can Police be beyond the responsibility of protecting the public toward whom those crimes would be against?

The super basic version is that if a civilian gets held at gun point and robbed, they can't turn around and sue the police for not being their to keep it from happening.