Deadly force (1 Viewer)

[Steve R.]

The article below was just published. Assuming that the article is valid, the government already had possession of the documents that the Biden administration was claiming that they (falsely) needed to recover. Therefore there was no need for a raid. Given that, the raid was simply a publicity stunt by the Biden administration to discredit Trump so that people would vote for Biden who claims to be protecting democracy. (sarcasm)

Revelation of secret Obama-era program casts doubt on stated reason for Trump Mar-a-Lago raid

A newly released DOD memo obtained by America First Legal appears to indicate the government may have had original copies of classified documents seized at former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida.

www.foxnews.com

"And to now realize that the Biden Administration could have avoided an illegal referral process to recover records the government already possessed, that it could have used normal means to ensure that records the former president believed should be housed in his presidential library (not yet built because of the hordes of investigations aimed at silencing him) were subject to a temporary hold for purposes of Archives’ review — yet didn’t — speaks loudly to America: the law protects only those who follow the norms of one party," Epstein added. (Emphasis added)

 

[GaP42]

Yeah, that's kinda how we feel about calling Jan 6th an insurrection that endangered the Nation's sovereignty, too.

Yeah - as an armed uprising pretty pathetic, but as an attempt to delay/prevent certification of the legit election results it was reprehensible.

 

[Steve R.]

Yeah - as an armed uprising pretty pathetic, but as an attempt to delay/prevent certification of the legit election results it was reprehensible.

It was not an armed uprising. That is blatantly false.

Mark Levin, on numerous occasions has summarized when Democrats have both challenged election results and put forward their own "fake" electors. Objecting to the results of an election is not a criminal endeavor. Nevertheless, Democrats (in there desperation) have been pushing this novel and unsupported narrative that protesting an election certification somehow constitutes obstructing the legislative process.

The Democrats' Long History of Objecting To Election Results

Congress is required under the Constitution to certify the election results in each state. When the House voted to certify Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory, nearly a dozen Democrats tried to block it.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, told reporters that she backed the effort by her rank-and-file dissenters but knew it lacked enough support to thwart Mr. Trump’s victory.
“In some cases, members are concerned about voter suppression, in some cases they are concerned about Russian influence on our election. There are a number of concerns,” she said.
Mrs. Pelosi pumped her fist in the chamber when nearly a dozen Democrats stood up to object to certifying Mr. Trump as the winner. Among the objectors was Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, now the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, and Rep. Maxine Waters of California, the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
Rep. Barbara Lee, California Democrat, was among those who stood up to oppose the certification of Mr. Trump’s election win.
“I object because people are horrified,” Ms. Lee said.
Claiming election fraud and voter suppression, Democrats objected to the certification of both of George W. Bush’s presidential wins in 2000 and 2004.

 

[GaP42]

Thanks @The_Doc_Man for your reply. I understand your view given that anecdote, however I would also ask you to consider and balance that against how many mistakes have been made, by citizens, including by law enforcement, that have resulted in deaths through firearms.

- the ownership of guns is largely justified on the basis of personal protection. There can be justified ownership in certain areas - esp livestock farming, and for sport (altho' hunting, for me, is not one), and for some it is seemingly the right to bear arms and somehow feel they can rise up and resist the government if needed. For most people that is not why they have a gun. The balance of permitting ownership and bearing guns in the community and bearing the levels of gun violence, mass killings and accidents associated with their use is problematic. I do not consider concealed carry or open carry in the community generally should be allowed. Responsible ownership / use should require appropriate storage and security of such weapons.
- the escalation of ownership and 'advanced' weapons in the community is symptomatic of an arms race. And yes, while the arms race in the larger political sphere arose and was successful in holding back conflicts - acknowledge that there has also been efforts to step back - to limit weapons spread and avoid MAD. Hopefully cool heads prevail, possibly as there are many inputs for multiple people in making those decisions and the extreme get moderated. In the case of private gun ownership cool heads do not always prevail in stressful situations. It is often one mind, obsessed, pushed to a breaking point (real or imagined) that results in deadly outcomes. Do not facilitate spur-of-the-moment deadly actions. Do require the proper assessment of requests for gun ownership etc., do limit the types of weapons available.
- my infernal hell is the same as yours - it doesn't exist BTW.

What would it have taken to prevent Sandy Hook or Uvalde, Parkland etc .... suffer the little children, but we must have our guns...

Where else do incidents like these occur at anything like the rates in the US? Why? Has the "experiment" of allowing such free access to guns worked (for personal protection)? Seems like the one of the definitions of madness to keep repeating the same actions and expect a different result. Have changes in other places led to different outcomes?... you know the answer.

We have evolved with primitive drives, but not with guns. We can change.

 

[GaP42]

@Steve R. - that is just ridiculous ..
1. my reference to the armed uprising was sarcasm - although that does not mean that people did not commit violent and illegal acts
2. the attempt to try to prevent certification was a collective action that was fomented by tRump and cronies. it was a real attempt, trying to get Mike Pence, or prevent him, from carrying out his duties. The ACT was clear.
The election of tRUMP was accepted, and no attempt was made to block certification. The decision of the voters was accepted and certification occurred without issue. What was attempted on Jan 6 was unprecedented.
In future elections, when the will of the people is known, will we see ever escalating acts from those that lost to protest and try to prevent certification? When does it change from peaceful protest to insurrection? What do those acts risk?

 

[Steve R.]

the attempt to try to prevent certification was a collective action that was fomented by tRump and cronies.

Disputable. There is anecdotal evidence that the patriotic rally was manipulated by government/Democratic operatives embedded in the crowd to turn it into a false flag operation.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The way they have tried to silence Dr. Peterson is beyond shameful.

Kinda' the way our government via their lap dogs of social media silenced Trump and the way the Judges have silenced him.

how many mistakes have been made, by citizens, including by law enforcement, that have resulted in deaths through firearms.

All the more reason to avoid the totally unnecessary Mar-A-Lago raid entirely. Instead, the FBI made it as dangerous as they possibly could. A conspiracy theorist might think they were looking for an excuse to shoot Trump.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

my infernal hell is the same as yours - it doesn't exist BTW.

True enough, but it makes for a nicely emphatic swear phrase.

There can be justified ownership in certain areas

Yes... anywhere that thugs have invaded. (HINT: It's a big area.)

The balance of permitting ownership and bearing guns in the community and bearing the levels of gun violence, mass killings and accidents associated with their use is problematic. I

In the USA, if we were strict constructionist, the following would be noted:
a) The 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
b) The U.S. Constitution also includes a supremacy clause that says lesser governments may not interfere with U.S. Constitutional issues.
Right there is the end of the discussion. Full stop. Period. But the namby-pamby Progressive Liberals want to disarm people who might still have a stronger moral fiber, strong enough to tell the Libs NO.

Look, I honestly don't think that everyone should go armed - but society is apparently degrading in a direction where that might become necessary because 911 calls now take 20-30 minutes in many municipalities. Crime is rising in those municipalities. Trust me, a criminal won't wait for 911 to arrive unless you have arranged for the perp to be perforated. Courts can't solve murders if the perps take down all of the witnesses - which IS something that some of them try to do. But if an armed populace happens to put down a few criminals, the Progressive Libs wail, moan, groan, and gnash their teeth at the OUTRAGE that someone would DARE to defend himself or herself (or itself, considering the direction of the Progressives these days.) The situation is already untenable in many larger USA cities, particularly on the USA west coast.

In the case of private gun ownership cool heads do not always prevail in stressful situations.

Once the perp's hot head has cooled down to ambient temperature, the problem he/she caused pretty much has gone away. That "Room Temperature Challenge" is an absolute deterrent - to recidivism.

Normally I'm a strong believer in letting the punishment fit the crime. But sometimes it seems that due to bleeding hearts that whine about the terrible conditions in overcrowded prisons, thus forcing folks to be let out to walk the streets again, just to make room for the next batch... We've run out of usable large islands and our friends the Aussies might object to us sending our criminals there for permanent exile. The solution is to nip this in the bud. And NO, that doesn't mean take away guns. It means to make the criminals fear that someone might shoot back. THAT is what they really fear.

 

[AccessBlaster]

As a last resort you could enforce the laws already on the books. For instance, keep repeat offenders in jail, It's a novel idea granted but it could work

 

[Pat Hartman]

the attempt to try to prevent certification was a collective action that was fomented by tRump and cronies. it was a real attempt, trying to get Mike Pence, or prevent him, from carrying out his duties. The ACT was clear.

You might want to do a little historical research. The left is so "today". It is because you've done a good job of destroying history but it is still there for you to find.

 

[moke123]

I'm curious, Do you honestly think you could pull the trigger? Take the life of a 14 year old with a toy gun? Are you willing to risk everything you have should you be wrong? Self defense is up close and personal. You'd have to shoot first. In 40+ years only 2 of my co-workers ever drew their weapons. Both involved teens pulling knives on them. Luckily they didn't have to shoot but it left a lasting impression on them. I've been threatened and chased a few times but never drew my gun. I'd rather retreat.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Law enforcement often makes early morning raids that alarm the residents, which might cause them to make fatal mistakes. If they have the wrong address things could get ugly real fast. So the possible use of deadly force should not be the standard, it should be reviewed per circumstance.

In Trump's case, this should have been waived.

 

[moke123]

Law enforcement often makes early morning raids that alarm the residents, which might cause them to make fatal mistakes. If they have the wrong address things could get ugly real fast. So the possible use of deadly force should not be the standard, it should be reviewed per circumstance.

In Trump's case, this should have been waived.

You'd be surprised at how many dogs get shot.

 

[AccessBlaster]

You'd be surprised at how many dogs get shot.

Pretty sure you can get whacked for posting memes under the current administration.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

As a last resort you could enforce the laws already on the books. For instance, keep repeat offenders in jail, It's a novel idea granted but it could work

Let's not get radical, now, AB... people might think you are an anti-anarchist or something similarly radical.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You'd be surprised at how many dogs get shot.

There was a recent case with Angie Harmon where a delivery person shot her family pet.

 

[moke123]

When the police breach the front door, the dealers run for the back door. The poor dogs run for the front door.

 

[GaP42]

Just a few questions/observations, given that

a) The 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Why is it that that right IS infringed: there are laws regarding keeping and bearing arms?
You yourself have said that some should not have that right. The right to bear arms is not an absolute.
It does seem that ultimately behind the need for arms is an inherent reliance on the (primitive) might is right rule of law and the way there is this tendency to develop an uncontrolled arms race that must be kept in check.
And

It means to make the criminals fear that someone might shoot back. THAT is what they really fear.

The "tough guy" persona that is projected does seem to show a don't care/don't fear attitude, so that does not always follow. It is scary to think some think life is so cheap. Perhaps there are some explanations for what "we" do that leads to the levels of desensitization to personal violence.

 

[AccessBlaster]

...It is scary to think some think life is so cheap.

Thanks for making OUR point, you have defined the need to own very clearly.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Why is it that that right IS infringed: there are laws regarding keeping and bearing arms?

You are from Australia, near Sydney if I did the research correctly. You might not see the furor that is going on. YES, there are laws regarding armament. We are undergoing a massive disruption of various rights because of an error made by the courts some years ago that opened a door to allow executive agencies to make laws, rules, and definitions to the detriment of many citizen's rights. It is worthy of a lengthy discussion on its own, but the short answer is that NO agency should EVER make rules due to what we call our "separation of powers" clause. That error is up for reconsideration in this court term, so there is SOME hope.

Anyway, you asked about laws. Take a serious look at states like New York with their CCIA (Concealed Carry Improvement Act) that forbids people to carry a weapon without a permit, but the language of that law allows denial of permits if the police don't like the reason they want the permit. The courts expressly slapped down New York's first attempt at making judgment calls over who gets guns, because it is the right of the people in general to have guns and it is NOT the right of a politically based review board to decide who is a "worthy citizen." California denies people access to shotguns and rifles and is restricting magazine sizes to 10 rounds. Washington state is extremely restrictive in their permitting scheme as well. I believe Arizona's governor is also a gun-control advocate. This list could go on and on, but I think I've made that point.

The legal framework regarding gun control right now is that the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that laws restricting access to firearms must pass a two-step test.

Step 1 is to determine if the action under consideration (such as a person obtaining a weapon) falls under the aegis of the US Constitution's 2nd amendment that includes the phrase "the right of the people to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed." The action can be examined for being egregious, as for example obtaining a nuclear weapon or a missile launcher, for which laws DO exist that would prevent that. IF the proposed action is otherwise within boundaries as defined by the Heller decision (which discusses arms in common use, which is how you exclude certain excessively destructive weapons), then ....

Step 2 is that the entity (federal, state, or local) that wishes to impose the restriction must show an historical analog of that law that was in place at the time of the founding of the nation. Further, the burden shifts to the government because the clear language of the 2nd amendment includes the phrase "shall not be infringed." THAT language has been taken to be equivalent to "shall not be prevented or impeded." This is the result of the so called "Bruen" decision. (Actually, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen.) Ideally, it means that if the state cannot show that the context in which the 2nd amendment was written didn't include a specific restriction, then a modern version of that restriction is illegal on its face and therefore unconstitutional.