Government has divorced itself from responsibility to protect Citizens

[DBTrek]

Yeah, didn't want to pee on the thread, but we've covered the police not being responsible for citizen safety a few times before.
You'd think more people would accept the fact and rationally decide that they should protect themselves - leading to a groundswell of support for 2nd Amendment rights.

But that would be a rational response.
Instead, people are like "WTF, how come cops don't have to protect us?"
... cuz cops protect the government by enforcing their laws, that's why.
Guess who you ain't.

The government.

[Speaker to Animals]

What sort of solutions for increased security would you like to see?
Cops at schools?
Armed teachers?
More metal detectors?

Shut down the government schools. That's it.

[heydaralon]

What sort of solutions for increased security would you like to see?
Cops at schools?
Armed teachers?
More metal detectors?

Shut down the government schools. That's it.

But then who will not protect the children?

[C-Mag]

I'm a Classic Liberal, so I think the government only has a few jobs, primary amongst them is security.
So, for me, if they are legally not bound to protect me, how much do I really need them at all ?

Your security is not a public good, I'm afraid, Carlus. Where did you get the notion that it was somehow?

It's about as settled as settled gets, in fact.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasl ... ction.html

From the notion that Government is responsible for the defense of the nation and security of its citizens.
While not necessarily true, they sure imply that's what they are there for.

I just want the lie to be an open fact.

[C-Mag]

Yeah, didn't want to pee on the thread, but we've covered the police not being responsible for citizen safety a few times before.
You'd think more people would accept the fact and rationally decide that they should protect themselves - leading to a groundswell of support for 2nd Amendment rights.

But that would be a rational response.
Instead, people are like "WTF, how come cops don't have to protect us?"
... cuz cops protect the government by enforcing their laws, that's why.
Guess who you ain't.

The government.

Good points as always DB...………… never worry about hurtin my feelz or trashin one of my threads if it is established on faulty ground. I don't need any affirmative action because I am mentally challenged as all Cis Het White Males are

[C-Mag]

What sort of solutions for increased security would you like to see?
Cops at schools?
Armed teachers?
More metal detectors?

Shut down the government schools. That's it.

But then who will not protect the children?

If the Corporate media came out with a story that the Police and Schools have no responsibility to safe guard your kids it would be accurate, and raise a lot of questions...…………… they will not.

[DBTrek]

They benefit from Americans having slogan-knowledge of government. For instance, how many of us have had to listen to the damn Ellis Island poem quoted by open-borders freaks as if it were enshrined somewhere as law or national policy? It’s not. It’s just a damn poem, people, nothing more.

Same with the LAPD putting “To Serve and Protect” on their cars. It’s just a slogan people, not a legislated policy. Take it with all the seriousness you would a fortune cookie.

But the power structure benefits from the citizen perception gap between sloganeering vs actual policy.

[DrYouth]

The police have no duty to protect citizens...

NO duty...

No duty seems strong.
Perhaps there are limitations on that duty... but no duty... how is that even legally arguable.

[heydaralon]

They benefit from Americans having slogan-knowledge of government. For instance, how many of us have had to listen to the damn Ellis Island poem quoted by open-borders freaks as if it were enshrined somewhere as law or national policy? It’s not. It’s just a damn poem, people, nothing more.

Same with the LAPD putting “To Serve and Protect” on their cars. It’s just a slogan people, not a legislated policy. Take it with all the seriousness you would a fortune cookie.

But the power structure benefits from the citizen perception gap between sloganeering vs actual policy.

Agree with the point about the liberty poem, and the lack of American knowledge about laws, myself included among the ignorant. Here's the thing though, where do we differentiate between an active shooter and something like a poorly lit staircase, or a wet floor with no sign? From my understanding, if you get injured on govt property, or even in a store, you can sue them if it can be proved that their unsafe conditions led to you being injured. If I slip on the floor at Wal Mart and break my back, I can take them to court (from my understanding). I'm not arguing that this is a good policy, just that it is the one our legal system has in place. In our hyper-litigous culture, it doesn't seem like much of a reach to go from suing over not having proper fire safety procedures resulting in injury and death to suing for not having proper active shooter procedures in place. At my work, every year, we have to watch safety videos on what to do in an active shooter situation. My sister's job has also discussed these procedures. It seems like corporations and the government just sort of prepare for every contingency because they anticipate future lawsuits, so at the very least, their lawyers can anticipate these suits coming down the pipe very soon.

[Speaker to Animals]

People who are immune to accountability for negligently getting others killed tend to not worry so much about negligence.

Same effect in VA hospitals where employees and beurocrats got away with murdering veterans for bonus checks. No accountability there either. People were outraged and the government promised reform. Years later veterans are still dying and nobody went to prison for it.

Welcome to liberalism.