In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Thanks, Jim.
Good to know that felons are always up-front and honest with the lawmen that have busted them.
Guy Jim caught: 'I didn't do nuthin' officer.'
Jim: 'My bad, here's your keys, sorry to have bothered you.'
Why do we have courts?[:)]
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Thanks for the insight Jim, I appreciate it. Forgive me if I don't take it as qauntitative or qaualitative analysis. My own personal experience is that large majority do not care about the restrictions until after they get caught/arrested and it too is neither quantitative nor qualitative(only insight gained as a side note while counseling/coaching felons trying to get jobs after release). I think that most of those who claim they stayed away from guns to avoid extra trouble were probably not those prone to violence. If not then they we had better restrict whatever thier weapon of choice is. Don't want to make it too easy for them to get and reoffend.
As a side note to this discussion. Would you really care if Joe Banker who swindled millions in a ponzi scheme, got caught, served his time, paid lots of restitution, met all the requirements of his punishment, wanted to take up trap shooting? Think he's gonna use a ratty ol 20ga(all he can afford, no bank will ever hire him again) to commit some violent crime? Are you afraid of what he might do, or how he might harm someone?
Not poking at you or trying to start arguement. Just trying to understand the logic of reasonable restriction supporters.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Made up words ?
Please answer one simple question, Gordo;
Does the Second Amendment allow the federal government OR state government the authority to regulate, restrict, or otherwise hinder citizens from buying, carrying,selling or freely using the weapons of their choice ?
Oh Oh pick me pick me I know the answer I know the answer.............
[:)][:D][8D][:I][:p][;)][:o)][8)]
What is............................................NO
Geez,why do we have to put up with these fakers, its a waste of our time when we could be strategizing, planning and organizing not wasting our time with these progressive collectivist liberal clowns that support a malevolent jbt federal government, police force and military, we need our own website forum where they are not invited, welcome or allowed; as it simply serves NO purpose other than to argue back and forth with those that refuse and or cannot understand the Constitution as it was written, NO compromises, NO alterations, NO legislations.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
You say it falls apart logically, how so? Nobody is forcing people to eat well or exercise, apples to oranges, and driving has been agreed upon to be a privilege, therefore subject to limitations. What are you preventing? Please show were this ounce of prevention has more than a negligible effect. You may see some benefit, I see none. The burden is having to ask the govt. permission to execise a right. That permission is "Am I worthy in the eyes of the govt. and society to own and posses this gun?" That is wrong.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
Ok, a few years from now when guns no longer exist in public in any meaningful number and knives and bats are the weapon of choice for bad guys, are you going to support thier restriction? I made the assumption as it has been the progression in other countries where people with a similar mind set to yours have advocated for reasonable restrictions. Then supported the outright ban of guns. Now in the last few years have started to call for and get limitations on knives.
Your statement, "Afterall, we can't predict what Might happen." applies to both sides. You seem to feel that we need restrictions because of what might happen if we don't restrict. Even though the restrictions are ineffective.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am not talking about solving crime. I think the solving of crimes is done pretty well. I am talking about the punishment and incarceration for committing crimes. Our society and the legal/judicial system do a horrible job of punishment and incarceration. If we did a good job there would be few dangerous criminals on the street, and citizens would not be fearful of protecting themselves. We knowingly let dangerous criminals out, and have through propaganda and and prosecution made a majority of citizens afraid to take the steps to defend themselves.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
Please opine on the effectiveness of gun restrictions as they apply to felons. I propose they have little to no effectiveness and therefore not worth the trade off of freedom.
Good day.
You know what they say about repeating the same thing over and over so I'm going to just accept that you 'propose' and I 'opine' and that the two views collide without resolution.
I sometimes feel like the language we supposedly share is inadequate in some way because I just don't understand how or why seemingly simple concepts are so poorly understood. I don't mean that as a slam against you in particular so please take no offense as none is intended. I know others wonder why I don't 'get' what they're saying.
quote:Geez,why do we have to put up with these fakers, its a waste of our time when we could be strategizing, planning and organizing not wasting our time with these progressive collectivist liberal clowns that support a malevolent jbt federal government, police force and military, we need our own website forum where they are not invited, welcome or allowed; as it simply serves NO purpose other than to argue back and forth with those that refuse and or cannot understand the Constitution as it was written, NO compromises, NO alterations, NO legislations
Werwolf ;
The reasons for the continued arguments are manyfold ;
We that actually support the Constitution as written MUST learn to defend it against those that would destroy it.
There will come a time, after the bloodletting..that decent men must sit in a room and once again hammer out the details of civilized life.
Would you have the Jim Raus or the GatoGordo's do that ? Do you REALLY want those kind of folks making the new laws...that will look JUST LIKE THE OLD LAWS that we will be forced to go to war over ?
Compromise away all that decent men spilled their blood over..once again handing over to government the power to insulate themselves from the horrors they enact daily ?
I think NOT..therefore...we every one of us NEED to know how those other people think, and the arguments they bring to the table. ONLY by listening keenly to them can we know how to fight them...like it or not.
Most of those folks live perpetually in the 'gray' area...they are unable to see black and white..therefore they do not hold the high ground. There IS INDEED 'right' and 'WRONG' in this world..no matter HOW they try to convince others there is not.
Hmm, apparently you didn't catch my sarcasm making fun of the anti's and that there comes a point in time that it is futile to try and educate those that prefer to remain uneducated and refuse to learn.
I know that your questions were rhetorical as to me you are preaching to the choir; although if need be I can answer, even though the answer would be an obvious NO however you answered your own question for me.
I think that I have established my intentions and beliefs here on these boards and elsewhere enough and if anyone is ignorant of those intentions and beliefs then I really cant convey that to them in any other manner for that would be frivolous in and of itself.
Certainly 'I caught your sarcasm'. It pretty much sums up MY thoughts, many days when I tire of the endless attacks of the Beast-Lovers.
I have found no reason to argue with you..and I read most posts of most people concerning these subjects....or try to.
Hpwever..there is yet other reasons to continue the ongoing dialogue here publically. A quick review of the numbers of readers versus the number of posters seems to indicate that there is a silent presence out there..reading and learning.
Not ALL of them sit in office chairs in shirtsleeves making notes....slavishly doing the bidding of their Masters....enemies of the Constitution, all....
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
Not important but just curious... Is it just English language insults that are frowned on or do you not know what 'joto' means? Like I said, I don't really care what knuckleheads call me and if it was up to me I'd give them free rein to say just about anything. It just shows their limitations IMO. Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
Not important but just curious... Is it just English language insults that are frowned on or do you not know what 'joto' means? Like I said, I don't really care what knuckleheads call me and if it was up to me I'd give them free rein to say just about anything. It just shows their limitations IMO. Thanks.
How many languages must I be fluent in?
The language of Google would be enough if you cared, but forget I asked. Do whatever you think is right.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote: quote:Originally posted by Highball
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
quote:I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Did you even bother to read the second sentence of my post?
The constitution does not prohibit a private seller from doing a background check.
I did not say a private seller should be *required* to do one.
I said someone who knows/thinks a gun will be used in a crime, and sells it anyway and then the gun is used in a crime, should face charges. I then said if the seller ran a background check, that would be a good defense against those charges.
I did not say background checks should be required, I basically said they are a good CYA (cover your...) for a seller.
The law I actually proposed, was making it illegal to supply a weapon you know or suspect will be used in a crime - just the same as it would be illegal to aid a criminal in his/her endeavors in any other way.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Certainly 'I caught your sarcasm'. It pretty much sums up MY thoughts, many days when I tire of the endless attacks of the Beast-Lovers. I have found no reason to argue with you..and I read most posts of most people concerning these subjects....or try to. However..there is yet other reasons to continue the ongoing dialogue here publicly. A quick review of the numbers of readers versus the number of posters seems to indicate that there is a silent presence out there..reading and learning. Not ALL of them sit in office chairs in shirtsleeves making notes.... slavishly doing the bidding of their Masters.... enemies of the Constitution, all....
I hear ya and never thought otherwise, just wanted to make sure to establish and make known my intentions and beliefs is all and threw a little humor as well since I am told that I am much too serious most the time, must be an officers trait in life. Personally I think its mostly the progressive collectivist liberal clowns worried if they are going to get the last word in on a thread hiding behind their computer screens slinging their little insults. Although you are probably correct in your assessment with gladys kravitz always watching and yes we need to constantly be vigilant never letting our guard down; however bring them on, I would prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around.
quote:I said someone who knows/thinks a gun will be used in a crime, and sells it anyway and then the gun is used in a crime, should face charges. I then said if the seller ran a background check, that would be a good defense against those charges.
Just whose data base are you going to access, to do this 'background check' ?
Ohh...ya. The only one that would stand up in a court of law..a GOVERNMENT data base.
How about we simply hold the PERPATRATOR responsible for his/her actions ?
Yeah...I agree about ONE thing...were I selling weapons, if somebody starting talking about offing their neighbor/local cop/...ANYBODY..then I exercise my 'rights' and refuse to sell to that person.
Fact IS...I have done so.
Reasonable to house and feed and provide healthcare FOREVER for the incarcerated?? At taxpayer expense?? I find THAT very unreasonable.
Workfare works at Angola State Prison. Them boys work. Definitely a deterrent in my opinion. If they are locked up and not put to death, make them work to pay for every service they need.
Commit an offense punishable by death. Then death it is. Locked up? No gun. Not locked up? Have a gun.
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote: quote:Originally posted by Highball
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
quote:I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Did you even bother to read the second sentence of my post?
The constitution does not prohibit a private seller from doing a background check.
I did not say a private seller should be *required* to do one.
I said someone who knows/thinks a gun will be used in a crime, and sells it anyway and then the gun is used in a crime, should face charges. I then said if the seller ran a background check, that would be a good defense against those charges.
I did not say background checks should be required, I basically said they are a good CYA (cover your...) for a seller.
The law I actually proposed, was making it illegal to supply a weapon you know or suspect will be used in a crime - just the same as it would be illegal to aid a criminal in his/her endeavors in any other way.
I was merely pointing out the constitutional prohibition that you were having difficulty locating.
An infringement is an infringement, private sale or not. Any serious background check would include entry into local, state, and federal databases (as has been mentioned).
quote:Originally posted by COBmmcmss
What's at issue here IMHO is that FOUR of those "justices" voted against our 2nd Amendment.
Kagan coming onto the court is the a fallout consequence of voting in someone with a history of activism in opposition to the republican form of government.
COB
But, but, but, everyone said it didn't matter who won the election. That McCain was just as bad as Obama.
Still beating the republican drum. ehh, gruntled ?
You will find that most INTELLIGENT folks hereabouts have disembarked from THAT particular train headed towards destruction....
If you study history you will note the Founders took for granted that their successors would be 'righteous God fearing men' which the progressives are not. They have literally '180ed' all of the RIGHTS and liberties listed in the Bill of Rights![:(!]
This is why we are having this discussion. There always have been and always will be some 'reasonable' restrictions on ALL of our rights and liberties. But because we have people who are in power now with no personal integrity we HAVE A BIG PROBLEM!!!![V]
If the law was a deterrent to criminals, they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.
Believing that a criminal will follow the law is akin to the story of the scorpion and the turtle. After convincing the turtle to give it a ride across the river, promising NOT to sting him, the scorpion does just that. His reply to the turtle before they both drown was, "It's what I am and what I do."
Laws stop law abiding citizens only. (duh) Remember that Columbine, Virginia Tech and Ft. Hood all three were designated gun-free zones and because of that, the criminal was the only one who ignored that law.
quote:Originally posted by RocklobsterI was merely pointing out the constitutional prohibition that you were having difficulty locating.
An infringement is an infringement, private sale or not. Any serious background check would include entry into local, state, and federal databases (as has been mentioned).
And I never said it should be government mandated.
The 2nd is a prohibition on the government infringing.
What I said was that the individual, private seller, may want to run a background check before he sells someone a gun, and it would be at the sellers discretion.
Just as it would be at the sellers discretion to sell you the gun in the first place.
Just as the 2nd doesn't mean anyone anywhere has to sell you a gun, it also doesn't mean that one cannot run background checks.
I can see it being a prohibition against government mandated background checks as a condition for owning a firearm.
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Thanks for the insight Jim, I appreciate it. Forgive me if I don't take it as qauntitative or qaualitative analysis. My own personal experience is that large majority do not care about the restrictions until after they get caught/arrested and it too is neither quantitative nor qualitative(only insight gained as a side note while counseling/coaching felons trying to get jobs after release). I think that most of those who claim they stayed away from guns to avoid extra trouble were probably not those prone to violence. If not then they we had better restrict whatever thier weapon of choice is. Don't want to make it too easy for them to get and reoffend.
As a side note to this discussion. Would you really care if Joe Banker who swindled millions in a ponzi scheme, got caught, served his time, paid lots of restitution, met all the requirements of his punishment, wanted to take up trap shooting? Think he's gonna use a ratty ol 20ga(all he can afford, no bank will ever hire him again) to commit some violent crime? Are you afraid of what he might do, or how he might harm someone?
Not poking at you or trying to start arguement. Just trying to understand the logic of reasonable restriction supporters.
You are correct. There are a small portion of the 'bad guys' who do think ahead and so some planning and most of them are less prone to be violent and they actually make a choice not to be armed. BUT the point is they do so after considering the consequences!!
Don,
Your post makes no sense, please clarify.[?]
Mr. Wolf,
I am still waiting for your 'proof'!!![?]
You implied that you believed the ex-felon when he told you he wouldn't carry. I merely suggested that had you believed him when he said he didn't do anything in the first place, he would not be an ex-felon.
[:)]
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
Your post makes no sense, please clarify.[?]
A bit of the raspberries, Jim.
You implied that you believed the ex-felon when he told you he wouldn't carry. I merely suggested that had you believed him when he said he didn't do anything in the first place, he would not be an ex-felon.
[:)]
Don,
In case you haven't noticed I have, as my Grandma would say, 'The gift of gab' and I was able to have 'off the record' discussions with many of the people I came in contact with as a cop, both good and bad guys!!![;)]
One of the things I tell people is most (95+%) of the people who called me for my services would say "I never thought this would happen to me!". That is why I tell people if you are going to carry a PPD you should do it ALL THE TIME. Bad things can and do happen to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.[V]
You can take it for what it is, my observation based on my MANY years on the street. If you have better info so be it.
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
You be done got qway the hell away from anything I said. Personally I favor public executions.
Comments
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Thanks, Jim.
Good to know that felons are always up-front and honest with the lawmen that have busted them.
Guy Jim caught: 'I didn't do nuthin' officer.'
Jim: 'My bad, here's your keys, sorry to have bothered you.'
Why do we have courts?[:)]
Brad Steele
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Thanks for the insight Jim, I appreciate it. Forgive me if I don't take it as qauntitative or qaualitative analysis. My own personal experience is that large majority do not care about the restrictions until after they get caught/arrested and it too is neither quantitative nor qualitative(only insight gained as a side note while counseling/coaching felons trying to get jobs after release). I think that most of those who claim they stayed away from guns to avoid extra trouble were probably not those prone to violence. If not then they we had better restrict whatever thier weapon of choice is. Don't want to make it too easy for them to get and reoffend.
As a side note to this discussion. Would you really care if Joe Banker who swindled millions in a ponzi scheme, got caught, served his time, paid lots of restitution, met all the requirements of his punishment, wanted to take up trap shooting? Think he's gonna use a ratty ol 20ga(all he can afford, no bank will ever hire him again) to commit some violent crime? Are you afraid of what he might do, or how he might harm someone?
Not poking at you or trying to start arguement. Just trying to understand the logic of reasonable restriction supporters.
Made up words ?
Please answer one simple question, Gordo;
Does the Second Amendment allow the federal government OR state government the authority to regulate, restrict, or otherwise hinder citizens from buying, carrying,selling or freely using the weapons of their choice ?
Oh Oh pick me pick me I know the answer I know the answer.............
[:)][:D][8D][:I][:p][;)][:o)][8)]
What is............................................NO
Geez,why do we have to put up with these fakers, its a waste of our time when we could be strategizing, planning and organizing not wasting our time with these progressive collectivist liberal clowns that support a malevolent jbt federal government, police force and military, we need our own website forum where they are not invited, welcome or allowed; as it simply serves NO purpose other than to argue back and forth with those that refuse and or cannot understand the Constitution as it was written, NO compromises, NO alterations, NO legislations.
quote:In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
You say it falls apart logically, how so? Nobody is forcing people to eat well or exercise, apples to oranges, and driving has been agreed upon to be a privilege, therefore subject to limitations. What are you preventing? Please show were this ounce of prevention has more than a negligible effect. You may see some benefit, I see none. The burden is having to ask the govt. permission to execise a right. That permission is "Am I worthy in the eyes of the govt. and society to own and posses this gun?" That is wrong.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
Ok, a few years from now when guns no longer exist in public in any meaningful number and knives and bats are the weapon of choice for bad guys, are you going to support thier restriction? I made the assumption as it has been the progression in other countries where people with a similar mind set to yours have advocated for reasonable restrictions. Then supported the outright ban of guns. Now in the last few years have started to call for and get limitations on knives.
Your statement, "Afterall, we can't predict what Might happen." applies to both sides. You seem to feel that we need restrictions because of what might happen if we don't restrict. Even though the restrictions are ineffective.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am not talking about solving crime. I think the solving of crimes is done pretty well. I am talking about the punishment and incarceration for committing crimes. Our society and the legal/judicial system do a horrible job of punishment and incarceration. If we did a good job there would be few dangerous criminals on the street, and citizens would not be fearful of protecting themselves. We knowingly let dangerous criminals out, and have through propaganda and and prosecution made a majority of citizens afraid to take the steps to defend themselves.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
Please opine on the effectiveness of gun restrictions as they apply to felons. I propose they have little to no effectiveness and therefore not worth the trade off of freedom.
Good day.
You know what they say about repeating the same thing over and over so I'm going to just accept that you 'propose' and I 'opine' and that the two views collide without resolution.
I sometimes feel like the language we supposedly share is inadequate in some way because I just don't understand how or why seemingly simple concepts are so poorly understood. I don't mean that as a slam against you in particular so please take no offense as none is intended. I know others wonder why I don't 'get' what they're saying.
Anyway, I'm out on this subject. Good luck.
Werwolf ;
The reasons for the continued arguments are manyfold ;
We that actually support the Constitution as written MUST learn to defend it against those that would destroy it.
There will come a time, after the bloodletting..that decent men must sit in a room and once again hammer out the details of civilized life.
Would you have the Jim Raus or the GatoGordo's do that ? Do you REALLY want those kind of folks making the new laws...that will look JUST LIKE THE OLD LAWS that we will be forced to go to war over ?
Compromise away all that decent men spilled their blood over..once again handing over to government the power to insulate themselves from the horrors they enact daily ?
I think NOT..therefore...we every one of us NEED to know how those other people think, and the arguments they bring to the table. ONLY by listening keenly to them can we know how to fight them...like it or not.
Most of those folks live perpetually in the 'gray' area...they are unable to see black and white..therefore they do not hold the high ground. There IS INDEED 'right' and 'WRONG' in this world..no matter HOW they try to convince others there is not.
I know that your questions were rhetorical as to me you are preaching to the choir; although if need be I can answer, even though the answer would be an obvious NO however you answered your own question for me.
I think that I have established my intentions and beliefs here on these boards and elsewhere enough and if anyone is ignorant of those intentions and beliefs then I really cant convey that to them in any other manner for that would be frivolous in and of itself.
I have found no reason to argue with you..and I read most posts of most people concerning these subjects....or try to.
Hpwever..there is yet other reasons to continue the ongoing dialogue here publically. A quick review of the numbers of readers versus the number of posters seems to indicate that there is a silent presence out there..reading and learning.
Not ALL of them sit in office chairs in shirtsleeves making notes....slavishly doing the bidding of their Masters....enemies of the Constitution, all....
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
Not important but just curious... Is it just English language insults that are frowned on or do you not know what 'joto' means? Like I said, I don't really care what knuckleheads call me and if it was up to me I'd give them free rein to say just about anything. It just shows their limitations IMO. Thanks.
How many languages must I be fluent in?
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
Not important but just curious... Is it just English language insults that are frowned on or do you not know what 'joto' means? Like I said, I don't really care what knuckleheads call me and if it was up to me I'd give them free rein to say just about anything. It just shows their limitations IMO. Thanks.
How many languages must I be fluent in?
The language of Google would be enough if you cared, but forget I asked. Do whatever you think is right.
quote: quote:Originally posted by Highball
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
quote:I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Did you even bother to read the second sentence of my post?
The constitution does not prohibit a private seller from doing a background check.
I did not say a private seller should be *required* to do one.
I said someone who knows/thinks a gun will be used in a crime, and sells it anyway and then the gun is used in a crime, should face charges. I then said if the seller ran a background check, that would be a good defense against those charges.
I did not say background checks should be required, I basically said they are a good CYA (cover your...) for a seller.
The law I actually proposed, was making it illegal to supply a weapon you know or suspect will be used in a crime - just the same as it would be illegal to aid a criminal in his/her endeavors in any other way.
Certainly 'I caught your sarcasm'. It pretty much sums up MY thoughts, many days when I tire of the endless attacks of the Beast-Lovers. I have found no reason to argue with you..and I read most posts of most people concerning these subjects....or try to. However..there is yet other reasons to continue the ongoing dialogue here publicly. A quick review of the numbers of readers versus the number of posters seems to indicate that there is a silent presence out there..reading and learning. Not ALL of them sit in office chairs in shirtsleeves making notes.... slavishly doing the bidding of their Masters.... enemies of the Constitution, all....
I hear ya and never thought otherwise, just wanted to make sure to establish and make known my intentions and beliefs is all and threw a little humor as well since I am told that I am much too serious most the time, must be an officers trait in life. Personally I think its mostly the progressive collectivist liberal clowns worried if they are going to get the last word in on a thread hiding behind their computer screens slinging their little insults. Although you are probably correct in your assessment with gladys kravitz always watching and yes we need to constantly be vigilant never letting our guard down; however bring them on, I would prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around.
Just whose data base are you going to access, to do this 'background check' ?
Ohh...ya. The only one that would stand up in a court of law..a GOVERNMENT data base.
How about we simply hold the PERPATRATOR responsible for his/her actions ?
Yeah...I agree about ONE thing...were I selling weapons, if somebody starting talking about offing their neighbor/local cop/...ANYBODY..then I exercise my 'rights' and refuse to sell to that person.
Fact IS...I have done so.
Daily's already making moves to get around it. [V]
He'll try. He'll fail, but if you live in Chicago it'll be years before you can actually benefit from this ruling.
Workfare works at Angola State Prison. Them boys work. Definitely a deterrent in my opinion. If they are locked up and not put to death, make them work to pay for every service they need.
Commit an offense punishable by death. Then death it is. Locked up? No gun. Not locked up? Have a gun.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote: quote:Originally posted by Highball
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
quote:I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Did you even bother to read the second sentence of my post?
The constitution does not prohibit a private seller from doing a background check.
I did not say a private seller should be *required* to do one.
I said someone who knows/thinks a gun will be used in a crime, and sells it anyway and then the gun is used in a crime, should face charges. I then said if the seller ran a background check, that would be a good defense against those charges.
I did not say background checks should be required, I basically said they are a good CYA (cover your...) for a seller.
The law I actually proposed, was making it illegal to supply a weapon you know or suspect will be used in a crime - just the same as it would be illegal to aid a criminal in his/her endeavors in any other way.
I was merely pointing out the constitutional prohibition that you were having difficulty locating.
An infringement is an infringement, private sale or not. Any serious background check would include entry into local, state, and federal databases (as has been mentioned).
Not sure how you can prove what someone "thinks" at a specific point in time. Not that proof is a requirement anymore.
What's at issue here IMHO is that FOUR of those "justices" voted against our 2nd Amendment.
Kagan coming onto the court is the a fallout consequence of voting in someone with a history of activism in opposition to the republican form of government.
COB
But, but, but, everyone said it didn't matter who won the election. That McCain was just as bad as Obama.
You will find that most INTELLIGENT folks hereabouts have disembarked from THAT particular train headed towards destruction....
This is why we are having this discussion. There always have been and always will be some 'reasonable' restrictions on ALL of our rights and liberties. But because we have people who are in power now with no personal integrity we HAVE A BIG PROBLEM!!!![V]
Believing that a criminal will follow the law is akin to the story of the scorpion and the turtle. After convincing the turtle to give it a ride across the river, promising NOT to sting him, the scorpion does just that. His reply to the turtle before they both drown was, "It's what I am and what I do."
Laws stop law abiding citizens only. (duh) Remember that Columbine, Virginia Tech and Ft. Hood all three were designated gun-free zones and because of that, the criminal was the only one who ignored that law.
COB
An infringement is an infringement, private sale or not. Any serious background check would include entry into local, state, and federal databases (as has been mentioned).
And I never said it should be government mandated.
The 2nd is a prohibition on the government infringing.
What I said was that the individual, private seller, may want to run a background check before he sells someone a gun, and it would be at the sellers discretion.
Just as it would be at the sellers discretion to sell you the gun in the first place.
Just as the 2nd doesn't mean anyone anywhere has to sell you a gun, it also doesn't mean that one cannot run background checks.
I can see it being a prohibition against government mandated background checks as a condition for owning a firearm.
quote:Jim Rau Posted - 06/30/2010 : 2:21:17 PM
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Thanks for the insight Jim, I appreciate it. Forgive me if I don't take it as qauntitative or qaualitative analysis. My own personal experience is that large majority do not care about the restrictions until after they get caught/arrested and it too is neither quantitative nor qualitative(only insight gained as a side note while counseling/coaching felons trying to get jobs after release). I think that most of those who claim they stayed away from guns to avoid extra trouble were probably not those prone to violence. If not then they we had better restrict whatever thier weapon of choice is. Don't want to make it too easy for them to get and reoffend.
As a side note to this discussion. Would you really care if Joe Banker who swindled millions in a ponzi scheme, got caught, served his time, paid lots of restitution, met all the requirements of his punishment, wanted to take up trap shooting? Think he's gonna use a ratty ol 20ga(all he can afford, no bank will ever hire him again) to commit some violent crime? Are you afraid of what he might do, or how he might harm someone?
Not poking at you or trying to start arguement. Just trying to understand the logic of reasonable restriction supporters.
You are correct. There are a small portion of the 'bad guys' who do think ahead and so some planning and most of them are less prone to be violent and they actually make a choice not to be armed. BUT the point is they do so after considering the consequences!!
Don,
Your post makes no sense, please clarify.[?]
Mr. Wolf,
I am still waiting for your 'proof'!!![?]
Don,
Your post makes no sense, please clarify.[?]
A bit of the raspberries, Jim.
You implied that you believed the ex-felon when he told you he wouldn't carry. I merely suggested that had you believed him when he said he didn't do anything in the first place, he would not be an ex-felon.
[:)]
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
Your post makes no sense, please clarify.[?]
A bit of the raspberries, Jim.
You implied that you believed the ex-felon when he told you he wouldn't carry. I merely suggested that had you believed him when he said he didn't do anything in the first place, he would not be an ex-felon.
[:)]
Don,
In case you haven't noticed I have, as my Grandma would say, 'The gift of gab' and I was able to have 'off the record' discussions with many of the people I came in contact with as a cop, both good and bad guys!!![;)]
One of the things I tell people is most (95+%) of the people who called me for my services would say "I never thought this would happen to me!". That is why I tell people if you are going to carry a PPD you should do it ALL THE TIME. Bad things can and do happen to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.[V]
You can take it for what it is, my observation based on my MANY years on the street. If you have better info so be it.
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
You be done got qway the hell away from anything I said. Personally I favor public executions.