# Poll: Americans worry -- can government protect us?.........



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

"Americans lack confidence in the government's ability to protect their personal safety and economic security..............."

The government has never had, and never will have, the ability to protect the people's personal safety and economic security.......

America has the 2nd amendment for personal safety............
Poll: Americans worry _ can government protect us?


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

Nor are police required to protect you. It's the nanny state mentality. I think the gubmint should do some basic things like secure the boarder and provide for the national defense. Personal safety is an individual responsibility as is financial security...


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

NGIB said:


> Nor are police required to protect you. <snip>


Which would be why a great many police cars have "To Serve and To Protect" written on them?

The police ARE there to protect us, but they are usually just a bit far away when needed. Yes, the Gub'mint's job is to secure the border, and they have a duty to provide economic conditions that *favor* personal financial security.

Other than that, I felt the "Poll" was a typical NRA-style Fear and Dread piece. "Buy Guns! They will protect you (and make us millions!)"


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

The Supreme Court has ruled, more than once, that the police DO NOT have a duty to protect you. Here's a quick link to a great site run by a fella I know personally with links to the case law:

SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect The General Public

Now, will a cop (if they arrive in time) try to protect a citizen - sure, I think most would.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

NGIB said:


> The Supreme Court has ruled, more than once, that the police DO NOT have a duty to protect you. Here's a quick link to a great site run by a fella I know personally with links to the case law...
> 
> SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect The General Public


One of those cases was in Washington, DC.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

Doesn't matter where the cases are, Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land...


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Cait43 said:


> "Americans lack confidence in the government's ability to protect their personal safety and economic security..............."
> 
> The government has never had, and never will have, the ability to protect the people's personal safety and economic security.......
> 
> ...


This is not true. The concept of the Second Amendment being there for personal protection is an invention of post-nation creation. When the Bill of Rights was drafted and inserted into the Constitution, the idea of personal protection via the use of arms was a given. No one in their right mind would have questioned this concept. Same for hunting. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the People's inherent right to arms in order to form a militia for the security of the state (read that "state" held its true meaning), and in the event of the rise of a tyrannical regime at home, to ensure the People had the means to overthrow it and install new government for their security.


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

I do not think the gov't can protect us. they can't keep intruders out of the white house or screen people in elevators with the POTUS, then the rest of us don't have a chance.
They can pass all the laws they want for gun control, but the bad guys will still have all the guns they want and don't care about the laws. :smt068


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I don't believe the government's agenda is to protect American property or provide safety. I believe the government wants to sustain itself, and it is going about making way to do just exactly that. It believes the people need the government, but nothing could be further from the truth. The government is not what makes America great, the people are. The government has sold out to big business and special interest, and wants to control society so that it does not put it down.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> This is not true. The concept of the Second Amendment being there for personal protection is an invention of post-nation creation. When the Bill of Rights was drafted and inserted into the Constitution, the idea of personal protection via the use of arms was a given. No one in their right mind would have questioned this concept. Same for hunting. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the People's inherent right to arms in order to form a militia for the security of the state (read that "state" held its true meaning), and in the event of the rise of a tyrannical regime at home, to ensure the People had the means to overthrow it and install new government for their security.


Exactly right! Nothing in the 2nd Amendment is said of hunting, personal protection/defense, recreational shooting. The sole purpose for the right to keep and bear arms is for a defense against a tyrannical government. "Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?" This was the sentiment of many of the founders, many of whom did not even support a federal constitution simply b/c it actually provided nothing. Each state already had a constitution. The Constutition of the United States is "supposed" to limit the federal government alone. It was never designed to give the federal government any power whatsoever.

The federal government has but three responsibilities: to provide a national defense (not an international police force), protect the state's right to govern independently (not to force them to yield to the will of an overlord federal government) and to engage foreign countries in trade. That is it. We, the people, are supposed to be able to protect our own property. Local police are charged with that duty in support of the local owner, but it is not their primary duty/responsibility. The people are supposed to have that right, and bear that responsibility. Same goes for enforcing the law. The people are suppposed to hold each other accountable with the support of a local police force. The police are supposed to be silent and unseen until things get out of hand, not be a menace to society like we see in some situations. Things are not as they were intended to be, and have not been in a very long time. And they won't get back to the way it is supposed to be by continuing to vote leaders into a corrupt and dysfunctional system that is geared toward protecting it's right to power over the people.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> I don't believe the government's agenda is to protect American property or provide safety. I believe the government wants to sustain itself, and it is going about making way to do just exactly that. It believes the people need the government, but nothing could be further from the truth. The government is not what makes America great, the people are. The government has sold out to big business and special interest, and wants to control society so that it does not put it down.


+1. Government's only agenda is self perpetuation, at least for those at the top of the power elite. Money is not the motivation, ego need gratification and power and control are the human qualities that those in political power seek to retain. The only thing government worries about is how to lay out the framework of the legislation they pass that affects the rest of us. They believe they are all above the fray, as evidenced by the general preamble to most federal legislation that states "THAT CONGRESS IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THIS LEGISLATION". In other words, their attitude is that they are better than the rest of us. This is further evidenced by the recent hospitalization of the fellow that flew here from Liberia and developed Ebola. There have been many calls to ban air travel from any of those African countries where Ebola is rampant. What do our top administration officials do and say? They say it would injure the economy of those countries if we banned air travel, and we can contain the problem, so there is no need to ban air travel from those areas. I say, BS. The government knows Ebola is going to be here and they are simply trying to stop the spread of fear and rumors about what is going to happen. Personally, I don't believe they have a plan to deal with it just as I don't believe they or the police can protect the average citizen from terrorist threats or general criminal activity. I do adhere to the NRA's general premise that the people should be armed to deal with their own defense, and if you believe the police can protect you. you're dreaming. I'll leave some flowers by your headstone the next time I stop by.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

NGIB said:


> The Supreme Court has ruled, more than once, that the police DO NOT have a duty to protect you. Here's a quick link to a great site run by a fella I know personally with links to the case law:
> 
> SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect The General Public
> 
> Now, will a cop (if they arrive in time) try to protect a citizen - sure, I think most would.


That's all very well, but if the local LEO's charter specifies protection, then they DO have a contractual duty to do so. SCOTUS rules on things nationally, but contract law can over-ride that sort of decision. They said that employers don't have to provide birth control packages in their health insurance, too - but most choose to provide just such a thing regardless of it not being their "duty" to do so.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> That's all very well, but if the local LEO's charter specifies protection, then they DO have a contractual duty to do so. SCOTUS rules on things nationally, but contract law can over-ride that sort of decision. They said that employers don't have to provide birth control packages in their health insurance, too - but most choose to provide just such a thing regardless of it not being their "duty" to do so.


This is true. Most LEAs have a mission statement to protect and serve the public, which means to protect the property and individuals where they can. The problem is they are so under staffed (but in a lot of cases over equipped) and ill-prepared to be everywhere. They just can't! To expect them to is naive at best. The police are to assist the people, but the people are supposed to be the first line of defense.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

The average response time (nationwide) for a 911 call is around 10 minutes. Lots of bad things can happen in 10 minutes. The good news is the cops will arrive at some point and you might still be alive to tell them what happened...


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

NGIB said:


> Doesn't matter where the cases are, Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land...


That's not what I was saying. I merely stated that one of those cases was in DC.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

NGIB said:


> The average response time (nationwide) for a 911 call is around 10 minutes. *Lots of bad things can happen in 10 minutes.* The good news is the cops will arrive at some point and you might still be alive to tell them what happened...


Absolutely right. Frequently all the police do when they arrive at a scene of a violent encounter is to take pictures, draw nice little silhouettes with chalk on the pavement, and make copious notes.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

NGIB said:


> Doesn't matter where the cases are, Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land...


And most of them should not be b/c in a lot of the cases, the USSC has no jurisdiction to hear the cases, which makes their rulings unconstitutional. And there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law. It's just an unlawful order. However, the average American has no clue and just takes it.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> And most of them should not be b/c in a lot of the cases, the USSC has no jurisdiction to hear the cases, which makes their rulings unconstitutional. And there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law. It's just an unlawful order. However, the average American has no clue and just takes it.


Wow. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction EVERYWHERE and can hear any case it wants to hear. Also, many laws are found to be unconstitutional and this is what the Supreme Court does for a living. Laws are passed but ONLY the Supreme Court can decide if they're unconstitutional and that's only after they are challenged in a lower court.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

NGIB said:


> Wow. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction EVERYWHERE and can hear any case it wants to hear. Also, many laws are found to be unconstitutional and this is what the Supreme Court does for a living. Laws are passed but ONLY the Supreme Court can decide if they're unconstitutional and that's only after they are challenged in a lower court.


Actually, no. It doesn't. There are several cases it should not hear b/c they are states rights issues. In any case that is a state rights issue, the Supreme Court should uphold the 10th Amendment, which recognizes the individual state's right to govern itself, free from a tyrannical federal government. Again, the constitution provides nothing for the states. Each state already had its own constitution. The intent of the Constitution of the United States is to "restrict", not empower, the federal government.

That is what is wrong with this country today, the fact that so many Americans just don't understand how it's all supposed to work. The job of the Supreme Court is to uphold the federal constitution, not to overrun the states. This is supposed to be a land of united STATES, not a single state. The federal government is not supposed to have any authority over the states. We are a far cry from that today b/c of the 14th and 17th Amendments, one of which actually has not been legally ratified, which would be the 14th.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Basically the police are there to investigate a crime after it has been committed. Will they protect you if they are present at that time in order to prevent it? Absolutely it is their duty! More than likely they will not be there. How often does a criminal commit a crime right in front of a police officer? It is in no way possible to have one on every block, every street and in every city or town 24/7.


----------

