I was thinking right along with the article, saying to myself that this is a good argument against government restrictions on personal ownership of firearms.
DCS, The state agents want a monopoly on force, and currency, and about a dozen other things. The government wants ALL the power and for us to be serfs like in the Middle Ages. We have to fight them all the time to keep what liberty we have.
As a PS to the Thin Line...I'm pursuing a Q/A: Why didn't the SCOTUS decisions mentioned absolve the Uvalde TX an Parkinson FL PDs from the inaction for which they were criticized. Other than voluntary resignations and one case that ended in acquittal, no LEO was charged with anything. But the SCOTUS decisions were not cited as a defense.
Brian, I should have clarified "fighting in court." There is a lawsuit going on here in Healdsburg against the city over its bullshit "Inclusion Tax" ($20,000) on new housing.
I don't understand the legal system at all. The rules (laws) are arbitrary, conflict with each other, written in gibberish English, and copious. SCOTUS is an example of all of the above.
Taking Latin 101might help some. I took 4 years of it thinking I was going to law school. (stop laughing).
Pls lemme no how the law suit turns out - if I haven't assumed room temperature first. Everybody should become an attorney. The State is so strapped for $$$ they'll be attempting all things visible and invisible. There will be plenty of opportunities to keep them tied up in court. Especially good if an injunction can be secured first!
It’s funny how lightbulb moments come and go. Not sure if this is the appropriate place but THANK YOU so much for recommending my Substack. I will do the same for yours which I very much enjoy.
Who is "Public at Large"? I've never understood that term. Obviously, the court didn't define it either in their decision. Your article explains why the police let the LA Riots (Rodney King) take place and the burning of Minneapolis in 2020.
great article. I would prefer unalienable rights. Inalienable rights can be taken, unalienable rights can never be taken. Unalienable is used in the Declaration of Independence. Probably meaningless but that's what I think.
I was thinking right along with the article, saying to myself that this is a good argument against government restrictions on personal ownership of firearms.
DCS, The state agents want a monopoly on force, and currency, and about a dozen other things. The government wants ALL the power and for us to be serfs like in the Middle Ages. We have to fight them all the time to keep what liberty we have.
Personally, I don't see much fighting going on...
As a PS to the Thin Line...I'm pursuing a Q/A: Why didn't the SCOTUS decisions mentioned absolve the Uvalde TX an Parkinson FL PDs from the inaction for which they were criticized. Other than voluntary resignations and one case that ended in acquittal, no LEO was charged with anything. But the SCOTUS decisions were not cited as a defense.
Brian, I should have clarified "fighting in court." There is a lawsuit going on here in Healdsburg against the city over its bullshit "Inclusion Tax" ($20,000) on new housing.
I don't understand the legal system at all. The rules (laws) are arbitrary, conflict with each other, written in gibberish English, and copious. SCOTUS is an example of all of the above.
Taking Latin 101might help some. I took 4 years of it thinking I was going to law school. (stop laughing).
Pls lemme no how the law suit turns out - if I haven't assumed room temperature first. Everybody should become an attorney. The State is so strapped for $$$ they'll be attempting all things visible and invisible. There will be plenty of opportunities to keep them tied up in court. Especially good if an injunction can be secured first!
Brian, Your voice and storytelling would have mesmerized the jury.
I learned a long time ago that police officers are sworn to “serve and protect” the STATE, not the citizens who pay their salaries.
Most have yet to learn that. Quite a surprise when they do...
It’s funny how lightbulb moments come and go. Not sure if this is the appropriate place but THANK YOU so much for recommending my Substack. I will do the same for yours which I very much enjoy.
Who is "Public at Large"? I've never understood that term. Obviously, the court didn't define it either in their decision. Your article explains why the police let the LA Riots (Rodney King) take place and the burning of Minneapolis in 2020.
Re "Public at Large" - certainly you know of America's obesity epidemic....
🤣🤣🤣🤣
great article. I would prefer unalienable rights. Inalienable rights can be taken, unalienable rights can never be taken. Unalienable is used in the Declaration of Independence. Probably meaningless but that's what I think.
Thanks. Good point. Corrected.
The government politicians, judges, district attorneys, and cops don't follow their own laws, so why should we?