Can you provide some proof of this?

"Can you provide some proof of this?", "Can you provide some proof of this?"

Fuck, man, give it a rest on the "proof".

Admit it, you're really Steveox, aren't you?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Most nations don't allow their OWN citizens to carry firearms without a LOT of paperwork and procedures - I highly doubt this same courtesy would be extended to foreigners, ESPECIALLY in Europe. It's quite obvious though that you haven't traveled extensively outside North America, and thus don't have much of a clue on these things ...

Anyway, do you have any proof to offer? Or would the answer be no, as usual?

I have travelled outside the country, and rather extensively. I'd list all the countries I've been to, but I have a meeting in three hours, so there's no nearly enough time.

I don't really care about this issue, though, as I have no desire to carry my gun with me when I travel. I have no idea how extensively it's allowed or not allowed.

It's just funny how you always whine for "proof" when someone says something. Why don't you go find "proof" to the contrary, and prove the person wrong?

In fact, please provide "proof" that most countries don't allow foreigners to carry firearms. Or will your "proof" be only what you think, as usual?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You are at work? LOL, must be some job, if you sit there for hours on end posting away at USPOL ... Methinks you aren't busy enough.

Well, if you don't care, and don't have an idea, then don't keep butting in where you don't anything of relevance to say.

I don't have to. This is a debating forum. Burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim. Simple as that.

Again, what you think doesn't matter.

I'm on the road, if you must know, sitting in my suite until I decide to leave for the meeting...

You haven't asked me nicely. As a result, I do not believe I'll comply with that request...

And you were foolish enough to claim that most countries don't do it. So, provide the proof of the claim that you made...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You seem angry and upset. Was it wrong of me to point out your job doesn't give you much to do?

What did I claim that most countries don't do? Maybe you could be less vague for a change.

Are you a bodyguard for ambassadors or something? If you are then I might believe you, but no civilians are allowed to carry firearms in most EU countries, if any. In Denmark it is not a question of paperwork, nobody except the police or certified police agents/bodyguards are allowed to carry firearms, period.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Dylan Groene and his sister Shasta were abducted by Joe Duncan, a known sex offender who was currently on parole (which he violated, for crossing state lines). Duncan tied up Dylan and Shasta's mother, mother's boyfirend, and their older brother and killed them. This happened about a hundred or so miles from where I normally take my family camping. When I was young and single, I didn't carry a gun, but now that I have something very valuable to protect (the lives of my family), I will take every legal option to protect them.

In the US, the Supreme court has decided that the police are under no obligation to protect a civilian, even if that person has a restraining order against their assailant. The court decided, quite rightly, that the number of police it would take to protect everyone from harm would quickly approach 1 police officer per civilian. Their job, as described here, is to investigate crimes and capture criminals. Period. So truly, we are on our own over here, until after the crime has happened.

The police will not have to look for my missing children, unless they find the bodies of my wife and myself, dead, with a pile of spent bullet casings around us, guns still in hand. But I doubt that it will ever come to that.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

That's interesting, I did not know that.

So if person A has a restraining order against person B, then the police don't have to protect A against B even if B violates the terms the court laid out? Wouldn't that be a crime though on the part of B, and wouldn't the cops be obligated to help person A if they could at that moment?

Yes, if person B violates the restraining order, they are violating the law and the police can haul them away for that. But if person B violates the restraining order and harms person A, person B will be charged with violating the restraining order, and battery (or assault, or both). Person A has redress against person B, but they already have a restraining order, so what more can they do?

Many restraining orders read "person B cannot come within x distance (100 ft., 100 yards, etc) of person A. A lot of the time, the police will be called out, and person A will not be able to prove that person B came within that distance, because they are now outside of said distance.

Keep in mind, that if I had a restraining order against person B, and they are not allowed within 100 ft. of me, they could still be on my property, in my front yard, without violating the order.

"To protect and to serve" is nothing more than PR, the police are no more obliged to protect me than I am obliged to protect some stranger on the street who is being assaulted. In my past, I have not been able to just walk away from a situation where someone is being assaulted, and I suspect most police feel the same way. But they are under no obligation to protect. Only to arrest and detain the assailant once a crime has been committed. And they are usually trhe last ones on the scene.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Yes, thats all I wanted to know - so if person B IS indeed violating the order, the police ARE obligated to protect person A in that case by arresting or otherwise stopping person B ... provided they are there in the nick of time.

Agree on all this.

So are you saying the police could legally just stand by and watch a crime occuring, for instance? But actually, thats hard to define - I mean a crime is occuring right at the moment person A rapes person B (taking rape as an example here) - the cops cannot wait till it's "over" ... Right? Or am I wrong?

No, police are reactive, not proactive. If I call 911 in good weather I can expect a 30-minute response at best. That's plenty of time for any intruder(s) to do as they wish.

I consider the investment sound; merely another factor in dismissing concern of being directly associated with society's ills.

Actually, yes, if a crime is in progress, they have an obligation to stop it, you are right. In the case I described, the charge would be battery, and the police would step in.

In my youth (think 1980's) the police would stop a fight, separate the parties involved, and try to get things ironed out. In 99% of the fights I have seen (or been involved in ), the police would break things up, and ask if anyone wanted to file charges against eachother. Because of the way we were at the time, both parties would say, "No, no charges," and everyone would go their separate ways. Fact of the matter is, the only time I have seen someone go to jail after a fight is when they pulled out a weapon (knife, baseball bat, tire iron, etc.)

But in the case of the restraining order, a lot of the time the police can do nothing if person B is not caught in the act of violating the order.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Some of us don't want strangers walking/driving up our roads or knocking at our doors and make it very clear with gates and signs. Does that make any sense to you?