General Categories > Laws and Legislation

ONE OF OUR OWN IN THE UNICAMERAL?

<< < (3/4) > >>

sjwsti:
I havent forgot about this exchange between myself and Mr Clark. It gives the impression that if Mr Clark were elected to public office his support for public safety personnel would be lacking.


Quote from: CitizenClark on December 01, 2012, 12:25:30 PM
The whole point of the right to keep and bear arms is to be able to defend yourself against tyranny. I can't imagine an emptier legal right to keep and bear arms than one that allows for any armed agent of the state or other "emergency responder" to arbitrarily disarm you.

If you dont like the law, work to change it. Using emergency responder and "tyrannical agent of the state" in the same sentence is so ridiculous that you made me laugh.

Quote from: CitizenClark on December 01, 2012, 12:27:14 PM
I shouldn't have to sign anything to be left alone. If you lay your hands on me against my will, you are committing a battery. My right to keep and bear arms should not be dependent on your ego.

A refusal of treatment form is simply a release of legal liability for the responder if you are advised to seek treatment and refuse to do so. If you suffer further injury or illness later its not our fault. Your free to refuse treatment and free to not sign. I will simply document your refusal in my report. You wont be "forced" to sign and if you believe this you are mistaken.

Quote from: CitizenClark on December 01, 2012, 12:30:43 PM
If you choose to be some sort of emergency responder, as far as I am concerned you are assuming the risks that come along with that choice. Your choice doesn't give you any right to abridge my liberty.

I gladly assume the risks that come with my job. Every day I do what I can to reduce and manage those risks so I and my crew go home in one piece. If that means hurting your feelings so be it.

To insinuate that you are being victimized by emergency responders, simply by having your weapon temporarily secured for safety reasons, is BS and insulting.

There are a number of risks that we as CCW holders assume by carrying a weapon. Being involved in a medical or traumatic emergency while armed and having to have that weapon secured is one of them.

- Shawn

farmerbob:
 I personally agree 100% with Mr. Clark, we must fight for our 2nd. Amendment rights without any hesitations or give, "shall not be infringed" doesn't allow for any wiggle room and we have lost so much as far as being infringed upon already.

If we say it's ok for emergency responders to disarm us, we have to agree with law enforcement disarmament and no guns in hospitals and agree that in times of emergency, we would have to agree that, the military should be able to disarm us and seize our guns because their safety is as important as a firefighters or an ambulance crews, do you see how the slippery slope works and how we can't give an inch, we have given far too much already.

What we need to come to a conclusion about is, LAWFULLY CARRIED GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!!!

sjwsti:

--- Quote from: farmerbob on May 22, 2015, 10:51:02 AM --- I personally agree 100% with Mr. Clark, we must fight fight for our 2nd. Amendment rights without any hesitations or give, "shall not be infringed" doesn't allow for any wiggle room and we have lost so much as far as being infringed upon already.

If we say it's ok for emergency responders to disarm us, we have to agree with law enforcement disarmament and no guns in hospitals and agree that in times of emergency we would have to agree that the military should be able to disarm us and seize our guns because their safety is as important as a firefighters or ambulance crew, do you see how the slippery slope works and how we can give an inch, and we have given far too much.



--- End quote ---

You are obviously under the same delusion as Mr Clark. Im not going to debate this again. You can read the entire thread that I quoted from above were all of the reasons for disarming an injured or sick person are listed. If you really believe that securing a dangerous weapon from someone that may be in shock from trauma or suffering a medical emergency that directly effects the ability of their brain to function is a violation of the 2nd amendment...well thats just nuts. Like Mr Clark you have no real idea what our jobs entail and have no business making or unmaking laws that directly effect our safety.

- Shawn (Agent of the State)

farmerbob:
And than in times of emergency I'm sure you can see why it would be necessary to disarm the people, I'm just saying, safety and all, and I don't want to argue either.

sjwsti:

--- Quote from: farmerbob on May 22, 2015, 11:19:05 AM ---And than in times of emergency I'm sure you can see why it would be necessary to disarm the people, I'm just saying, safety and all, and I don't want to argue either.

--- End quote ---

Thats not what I said and you know it. I have never, nor would I ever, voice support for "disarming the people". Nice try though. Good luck with the campaign and have a nice day.

- Shawn

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page