VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:25:15 11/24/02 Sun
Author: Leland Gaunt
Subject: Re: ANSWER THE DOCUMENTATION; SUSI; DO NOT DEMUR
In reply to: Susi 's message, "Re: Law Enforcement Response Time Concerning Emergencies" on 21:33:13 11/23/02 Sat


This is strictly YOUR interpretation of the United States Consitution. This is the old leftwing argument of the past in which you give your interpretation of the constitution. Still, I have to wonder if you mean a militia, does that mean one is unfit to own a firearm before and after military service? Does this mean local law enforcement by your "findings"? If so, I suppose a person whether a he or she once retired from the military or law enforcement will be deemed "unfit" to own a weapon for simple protection.
Addtionally this would subject the person retribution and revenge if a person they helped convict and send to prison finds out where they reside in retirement. This sounds like the old Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D)-Ohio proposal that all law enforcement officers should be disarmed when finishing their tours of duty or when they face final retirement. Even liberals like Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D)-Minnesota rejected this shrill leftwing "solution" on gun-control. Metzenbaum was laughed at by his fellow Democrats at the time. This happening occured in the 1970's which I can document.

I find it comical you refuse to answer any questions I laid out concerning the right of self protection. The periodicals was documented, but you chose to ignore the questions and documentation I laid out. I guess this is typical leftwing "cover" you refuse or demur. Please offer me documentation to counter the paragraph offered in "Earthquake Country" or the police response documentation I offered from the Police Protective League. Most police officers and law enforcement officers I know belong to the NRA, additionally. They would back me up on my arguments.

I can surmise you have a hidden "agenda" with your leftwing bit on guns. By the way the United States is an elastic document, so the right to bear arms DOES apply to private citizens, Susi

Leland

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.