Dear Liberals, if ISIS is a threat to all Americans, then shouldn’t we be well armed?

2nd amendment

Lost in all the fear mongering from Liberals regarding ISIS, is that if what they’re saying about ISIS is true, then shouldn’t all Americans be arming themselves?

Sorry Liberals, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t defend Obama’s wars, saying ISIS could strike America, and then also argue for more restrictive gun laws. If we’re under as much threat from ISIS as you claim, every American should be well armed.

Some media outlets are reporting that ISIS could already be here. ISIS was quoted as saying “You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms.”

No military or police force can monitor every inch of America. Dialing 911 during a terrorist attack won’t do you much good. The only way for every American to be properly defended against these terrorists, is to be well armed. Something Liberals do everything they can to prevent.

Obama getting his way to bomb more countries will certainly increase the threat of another terrorist attack. After all, getting involved in the Middle East for decades was what led to 9/11. If Liberals are dead set on expanding these wars, then they need to drop the ant-2nd amendment rhetoric. The 2nd amendment wasn’t to hunt. It’s to help us clean up your mess.

3 thoughts on “Dear Liberals, if ISIS is a threat to all Americans, then shouldn’t we be well armed?

  • October 28, 2014 at 7:24 am

    How timely that Bernie Kerick (former NYC Police Commissioner) just stated that the US CANNOT stop every Lone Wolf terrorist attack. He actually advised that “Professional intelligence and citizen vigilance are critical to stopping terrorism.”

    If an innocent citizen observes a potential terrorist incident, and there’s not any police around for miles, please tell me HOW they would stop the attack if unarmed? Maybe if they asked the terrorist to cease the terrible attack?

  • Pingback: Dear Liberals,

  • October 27, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    But wait, the United States Supreme Court has rules on numerous occasions that it is NOT the responsibility of ANY Police Department to protect ANY citizen. If it’s not their job, and innocent citizens are supposed to disarm, then what do we do? Liberals please answer.

    Case Law:

    In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.

    In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled,[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.

    Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C.§1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.

    In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1988), the US Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.

    Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, in which legal land “authorities” stated that police had no constitutional duty to protect people from crime, after a woman, who’d filed numerous complaints and had gotten restraining order, was continually harassed and had her property vandalized by her ex-husband.

    Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn’t change the rule.

    Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.);

    South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

    Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.);

    Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist’s wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.);

    Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969) (An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the Watts’ Riots’ of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.);

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.