Thread: Unconstitutional Action and Gun Laws

Being a retired Police Lieutenant from a large urban agency outside of NJ as well as being retired from injuries suffered from a line of duty action, I just love to read from people that think guns aren't required and should not be in the hands of citizens.

Even if you are a mixed martial arts fighter,there is always someone just a little bit stronger and more capable of kicking your ass. Most Police departments are understaffed,with many running shifts with skeleton crews. All jokes aside-it would be better to have a bunch of cops sitting in a coffe shop just WAITING FOR YOU TO CALL FOR HELP. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case and when you need help-seconds feel like HOURS.

Bottom line-law abiding citizens SHOULD and have a RIGHT to bear arms. Its funny how the liberal left treat the bill of rights. It is convenient for them to bend the meaning of the Second Amendment-God forbid,we say ANYTHING about the rest.

Even though the Second Amendment exists and has been challenged in court,what about the Articles of the Constitution- where it states Congress shall past no post defacto laws. In other words-what is legal today-cannot be made illegal tomorrow?

When someone gets on the anti-gun bandwagon-I ask them one question. Have you ever had to FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE-for real? Most have not. As a former LEO,the Police CANNOT protect you at all times. Period. Isn't that enough reason? More people are killed in motorvehicles than by firearms-there isn't any talk of banning cars is there?

Originally Posted by Lt.Arclight

motorvehicles than by firearms-there isn't any talk of banning cars is there?

I think there's something about intent that's important here.