- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Yes, that's what you said. What you have not done is show where it is wrong under our rule of law "counselor."
I posted a law that you apparently were unable to understand or find
Thunder made an idiotic claim and you whine about my arguments
your dishonest postings are patent
get back to me when you can understand the argument I made about estoppel-I tire of your evasive nonsense
Your "law" was as convincing as your claim that you are a lawyer. There was nothing in your "law" that stated police have the same weapons restrictions as civilians.
a complete concession of a failure to argue
the issue involves a statement by a government entity about the utility of certain weapons
Only in your mind.
You made the claim that police are civilians, yet cannot explain why civilians and police have different weapons restrictions.
In warfare...having more powerful weaponry is of great importance. Police officers logically go by a similar logic.
I would hope the folks charged to protect me (Soldiers/Police), are given the tools to do so...and would also hope the bad guys (Criminals/enemy soldiers), are far less well armed.
I would prefer a shotgun, over a AR-15 any day.
well free choice is a good thing
you pick your targets as you see fit and I won't have any say in that
Well free choice absolutely is. I urge you to consider what a jury might say at a pot shot killing a someone driving away at 500m. Certainly would look bad here.
still avoiding my point (everyone else knows I am correct except you and Thunder-Cops are civilians not military)
if say NYC says a 17 shot glock is suitable for a civilian NYC employee to use for self defense in the confines of that city how can it possibly say that the weapon has no suitable purpose for OTHER civilians
focus on that and use all your impressive credentials in firearms issues to answer that
in many home defense scenarios a shotgun is a superior weapon for defense.
but that should be your choice-not the choice of people who have no clue about weapons or think they should restrict what you own because of their own ignorance, fear of weapons, or spite
Police definition - "The governmental department charged with the regulation and control of the affairs of a community, now chiefly the department established to maintain order, enforce the law, and prevent and detect crime.
1. A body of persons making up such a department, trained in methods of law enforcement and crime prevention and detection and authorized to maintain the peace, safety, and order of the community"
Read more: police: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
Civilian definition - " A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group."
Read more: civilian: Definition from Answers.com
See if your "impressive credentials" in law allow you to discern the difference between civilians and the police.
I am an expert on the laws of self defense having shot someone years ago and then defending a major police department that sometimes was sued for "wrongful death" claims
In many ways , I agree. However...I love my 10 gauge as home defense and piece of mind. I am pleased that my wife has her little .38.
I also know neither will be much use against an AK47 on automatic.
Both my weapons serve an acceptable purpose in my mind...assault weapons have ONLY one designed purpose.
Killing as many people as possible.
Not relevant-deal with my argument and stop diverting
That definition is not consistent with the United States Code that distinguishes between the military and CIVILIAN Law enforcement
just GOOGLE ARE COPS OR POLICE CIVILIANS
deal with my argument rather than trying to avoid it with your silliness
Some expert that doesn't know the difference between civilians and the police! :lamo
LOL! Not relevant is your pat answer when you have been stumped.
The definition of civilian specifically states not a member of the the military or the police. So much for your legal expertise!
you are again divert because you don't have the ability to argue the pending point
many sources including the US Code consider CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS CIVILIANS
anyone is not a member of the military is a CIVILIAN
which is why the POTUS being the CinC is to show that civilian authority presides over the military
here is an interesting article on civilian vs military police
Are Military Police Above Civilian Police Officers?
now deal with the point of if a government entity decrees a weapon suitable for self defense by civilian employees why does that not justify other civilians using that weapon as a suitable self defensive tool
You don't know the difference between civilians and the police and you claim to be a lawyer! :lamo
what exactly are you doing here when you already admitted you don't feel a need to own such a weapon?
It seems he is trying to kill it by flooding it with stupidity. For the love of all that is good, quit responding to him, maybe he will go away.
I am an expert on the laws of self defense having shot someone years ago and then defending a major police department that sometimes was sued for "wrongful death" claims
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?