IPB
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
> gun options, the trade off
kzt
post Jan 29 2008, 07:36 PM
Post #76


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234
Just don't tell them about about the Supreme court case where they decided it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen".

Or these cases.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989))
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990))
Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990))

But, yeah, other than that, you don't have to plan to protect yourself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Jan 29 2008, 09:19 PM
Post #77


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760
I'm pretty sure Critias was being facetious.

That, or he feels his genetic stock would serve him better as cogs in the machine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jan 29 2008, 09:47 PM
Post #78


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 16,898
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802
They're still going to be cogs even if they know the cops won't protect them. It's not until they learn that guns are for killing police, military personnel, and other governmental agents that they will be free.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Jan 29 2008, 10:16 PM
Post #79


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760
Agents only means law enforcement and the like, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jan 29 2008, 10:35 PM
Post #80


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 16,898
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802
Not at all—it means those acting on behalf of the government. I would say that it is rather more of a difficult matter of determining when the civilian governmental agents become fair targets than those in law enforcement or the armed forces, but so long as civilian authorities (counting law enforcement as non-civilian for this discussion) ultimately give the orders there must be some point at which they become valid targets.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Jan 30 2008, 12:05 AM
Post #81


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826
I think this follows one of the topics in here: there was an infomercial advertising "foam girdles" on the box a month or so ago - which made me cringe as the father of a young girl - but one could imagine such with a culvert for a firearm or defense drone of some sort to accessorize that evening dress. (Culvert's probably not the right word here, dimple, perhaps?) Sort of along the bustle idea, only tagline: breath easier by not breathing at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kzt
post Jan 30 2008, 12:42 AM
Post #82


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
ultimately give the orders there must be some point at which they become valid targets.

Look! Black Helicopters!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jan 30 2008, 06:51 AM
Post #83


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714
QUOTE (kzt)
Just don't tell them about about the Supreme court case where they decided it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen".

Or these cases.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989))
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990))
Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990))

But, yeah, other than that, you don't have to plan to protect yourself.

For the record, I was being sarcastic. I think it's safe to say I'm somewhere in the top five or ten DSers, were we to ever be ranked, when it comes to taking responsibility for one's personal safety.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Jan 30 2008, 02:24 PM
Post #84


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Not at all

*whew* *wipes brow*

I don't give orders or enforce anything at all!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Snow_Fox
post Jan 31 2008, 03:11 AM
Post #85


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,577
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Gwynedd Valley PA
Member No.: 1,221
Don't make me get out my neuralizer
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »
 

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 04:42 AM
Powered By IP.Board © 2022  IPS, Inc.

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.