Interesting police opinion

I wonder if Fire Fighters are also so low on your scale of aptitude Jeff. Both they and LEO's lay their lives on the line daily to protect and save your ass. Worthy of having opinions though? Obviously not. Only Ivy League types get to decide policy! Tosh! And there I was under the impression you were a socialist at heart. Could this be another blatant example of where those that advocate for the Left, do so from a platform of "none of this applies to me".
 
Sorry Jeff, but I've got to agree with Larry concerning your comment on the unacceptability of input by police officers on gun control.
First, many of these officers have criminal justice or other degrees from accredited colleges or universities.
Next - When was the last time you went to a murder scene...or a 'domestic' where a gun might be involved? How many times have you walked into a building with an armed criminal hiding inside?...or consoled a family whose young son or daughter was brutally attacked?
I think these people are extremely qualified to offer opinions on what will or will not work relative to gun 'control'.
 

Keith

Moderator
I wonder if Fire Fighters are also so low on your scale of aptitude Jeff. Both they and LEO's lay their lives on the line daily to protect and save your ass. Worthy of having opinions though? Obviously not. Only Ivy League types get to decide policy! Tosh! And there I was under the impression you were a socialist at heart. Could this be another blatant example of where those that advocate for the Left, do so from a platform of "none of this applies to me".

Mark, you are wasting your breath. This is the guy that revisited the Libya Grave Desecration Video thread last week, and, in his own words said "I re-read the thread and had a laugh" in an attempt to insult me.

He is obviously means to offend (I think he just gets off on it) and shouldn't be responded to.
 
The bottom line is that police have a perspective on gun laws which makes sense to a policeman's job - they want to be armed so as to have the authority to carry out the law, but they don't really want members of the public to be too well armed, and they certainly don't want criminals to be armed.

That perspective is just that...a perspective which is a sub-set of the overall population which is most likely not representative of the whole population.

I feel like I'm a fairly typical gun owner. I have a few "sporting" guns in my possession such as a 12 gauge shot gun, a basic hunting rifle, and a 1911 9mm handgun. The 1911 I just bought a couple weeks ago and the whole process makes complete sense: a background check to make sure you're not a crazy or a dangerous criminal, and a waiting period to make sure you're not a nut frothing with blood lust because you just caught your wife in bed with another man.

There's no need for full-auto weapons and there's no need for heavy artillery. Keep in mind, during the time frame in which our right to bear arms was established, the available weapons for people to arm themselves with consisted of very poor and inaccurate weapons which were slow to fire. So why would we expect to be able to wield a full auto 50 cal based upon that Constitutional right? Do we need that to defend ourselves from a home invasion? Or are we worried there's a modern-day King of England trying to take away our freedoms and we do, in fact, need heavy artillery?

Net, I think most gun owners today are actually pretty responsible and very middle-of-the-road about it - they support background checks, limitations on the size/caliber of guns, restrictions on the rate of fire, registration requirements, waiting periods, etc. They don't want guns in school and they think the NRA is a bit "out there" with some of its policy statemetns being too fundamentalist. Of course, there's a very vocal minority of gun owners who are much more fundamentalist about it all, and they get a disproportionate amount of air time for their gripes. Why? Because they're loud mouths. This group is a very small percentage of the population I think.

We live in a complex and increasingly crowded world where absolute rights work less and less well. We need to be willing to consider the rights of others and compromise our own individualist desires and consider the needs of the greater good. It's called living in a civilized society. I know I don't want some crazy living next door with a bunch of automatic assault type weapons which aren't registered and laying around for my kids to see. Does that make me a "liberal"? If it does, I'll gladly accept that label and be proud of it.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
...from Cliffbeer2:

"The bottom line is that police have a perspective on gun laws which makes sense to a policeman's job - they want to be armed so as to have the authority to carry out the law, but they don't really want members of the public to be TOO well armed (The Founders felt otherwise. I'll get into that in a moment), and they certainly don't want criminals to be armed.

That perspective is just that...a perspective which is a sub-set of the overall population which is most likely not representative of the whole population. (Just as your post is a sub-set and most likely not representative of the whole population.)

I feel like I'm a fairly typical gun owner. I have a few "sporting" guns in my possession such as a 12 gauge shot gun, a basic hunting rifle, and a 1911 9mm handgun. The 1911 I just bought a couple weeks ago and the whole process makes complete sense: a background check to make sure you're not a crazy or a dangerous criminal, and a waiting period to make sure you're not a nut frothing with blood lust because you just caught your wife in bed with another man. (Here in Wash. St. anyone with a CCW can buy a handgun and walk out the door with it on the spot. Of course, the 2nd amend guarantees he can do that regardless.)

There's no need for full-auto weapons and there's no need for heavy artillery. KEEP IN MIND, DURING THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH OR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMSWAS ESTABLISHED, the available weapons for people to arm themselves with consisted of very poor and inaccurate weapons which were slow to fire. SO WHY WOULD WE EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO WIELD A FULL AUTO 50 CAL BASED UPON THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT(!!!)? Do we need that to defend ourselves from a home invasion? Or are we worried there's a modern-day King of England trying to take away our freedoms and we do, in fact, need heavy artillery? (The Founders knew the English language pretty well, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you say they had more than a basic grasp of the meaning of the words IN it? You darn betcha they did. If they had intended to limit the people's right to "keep and bear" only to the arms of their day - THEY'D HAVE S-A-I-D SO. But they DIDN'T. They purposely said "arms" instead of "muzzle loaders, flintlocks and bayonets" because they KNEW "arms" would change/advance over the years and they wanted "the people" to have access TO them. Why? So that "the people" wouldn't be OUTGUNNED by a tyrantical govt. The whole PURPOSE of the 2nd Amend was to ensure that "the people" could not be enslaved by same. (Read the Federalist Papers.) Further: The Founders ALSO did not say, "If at some time in the future someone somewhere decides that 'arms' have become too deadly for the people to be intrusted with them, at that time the govt shall have the authority to dictate what 'arms' the people can and cannot own and carry...HOW MANY ROUNDS their arms can hold, WHERE said arms can and CANNOT be carried, and whether the people can carry said arms CONCEALED or in the open." If they had intended any of that be the case - THEY'D HAVE SAID SO. Instead they said we have the right to keep and bear - PERIOD.

Net, I think most gun owners today are actually pretty responsible and very middle-of-the-road about it - they support background checks, limitations on the size/caliber of guns, restrictions on the rate of fire, registration requirements, waiting periods, etc. ('Pure horse feathers!!! Only lefty, anti-gunners think that way! Those are ALL "infringements". Every darned one of them. And as such they're ALL unconstitutional...it matters not what some lefty anti-gunner in a black robe has to say about it...'how he "interprets" those laws.) They don't want guns in school and they think the NRA is a bit "out there" with some of its policy statemetns being too fundamentalist. (Again - that's the lefty anti-gun crowd's thinking. THEY don't want to see an armed 'good guy' guarding our kids in school. Nooooo problemo with armed guards watching over their MONEY in a bank...or armed guards patroling THEIR property - but, by golly, 'yeeeeeeeeew' better keep 'them there' armed guards 'outta' our schools! Besides, we already have the "GUN-FREE ZONE" laws! THEY provide an 'iron dome' of absolute safety and protection for our kids. No one would EVER DARE to even bring a gun into a school let alone shoot anyone therein with it. Besides, if anyone DID - someone within the school could always use SCISSORS to fend him off...) Of course, there's a very vocal minority of gun owners who are much more fundamentalist about it all, and they get a disproportionate amount of air time for their gripes. Why? Because they're loud mouths. This group is a very small percentage of the population I think. (Well, at least you didn't call 'em stupid. But, be advised, they represent a bit more than just a "very small percentage" of the population.)

We live in a complex and increasingly crowded world where absolute rights work less and less well. (The Founders ALSO did not say, "When the world becomes too crowded and absolute rights seem to be working less and less well............") We need to be willing to consider the rights of others and compromise our own individualist desires and consider the needs of the greater good. (Thank you, Karl Marx.) It's called living in a civilized society. (History has called it by other names.) I know I don't want some crazy living next door with a bunch of automatic assault type weapons which aren't registered and laying around for my kids to see. Does that make me a "liberal"? If it does, I'll gladly accept that label and be proud of it." (You still have that right............so far.)

Obviously, the comments in (red) are mine...
 
Last edited:

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I wonder if Fire Fighters are also so low on your scale of aptitude Jeff. Both they and LEO's lay their lives on the line daily to protect and save your ass. Worthy of having opinions though? Obviously not. Only Ivy League types get to decide policy! Tosh! And there I was under the impression you were a socialist at heart. Could this be another blatant example of where those that advocate for the Left, do so from a platform of "none of this applies to me".
Woot! That's a hoot. I can't tell if you are intentionally trying to be a dick, or just can't read.

Point of my post: the PoliceOne survey is interesting (yep, I said, go check), we should certainly consider it (same), but using it as the end all be all on gun policy is silly for a variety of reason.

So I have no idea what you are ranting about other than you saw a post of mine, picked out a phrase or two and like Pavlov's dogs started ranting on cue. Nice job!
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Mark, you are wasting your breath. This is the guy that revisited the Libya Grave Desecration Video thread last week, and, in his own words said "I re-read the thread and had a laugh" in an attempt to insult me.

He is obviously means to offend (I think he just gets off on it) and shouldn't be responded to.
Too much. Hardy, what I pointed out was:

1. Morton points to Muslim violence again, probably once again to try and claim only Muslims are violent.

2. My exact post: "I know! Some people" with a link to stupid, angry, even more violent football hooliganism to point out that violence is not endemic to only one culture or religion.

3. Your response and Morton's: "wanker," "crass fool," and "you should be reported to the authorities."

The point again is you are too immature to even handle discussion of an opposing viewpoint, and are quick to dish out insults, but as soon as something you don't like gets said you cry "Breach of Forum No. 1" like the school bully who finally got his nose pushed in.

You get a "nice job" as well.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
So once again Larry, your position is that the 2nd Amendment gives a completely unrestricted right to any person -- the insane, 3 year olds, felons -- to own ANY arms of any kind, like bazookas, tanks, etc. Is that right?

And if it isn't, then your whole "only regulation I don't like is unconstitutional" argument falls into the toilet it belongs in. If it is, you are nuts, but at least you are consistent.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
So once again Larry, your position is that the 2nd Amendment gives a completely unrestricted right to any person -- the insane, 3 year olds, felons -- to own ANY arms of any kind, like bazookas, tanks, etc. Is that right?

And if it isn't, then your whole "only regulation I don't like is unconstitutional" argument falls into the toilet it belongs in. If it is, you are nuts, but at least you are consistent.

If you don't LIKE the way the '2nd' is written, feel free to try to change it. Short of doing that, it will continue to say what it says.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Let's explore this line of thinking, constitutional absolutism (which the Founders most decidedly did NOT believe in).

Take the 1st Amendment. Do the words "freedom of speech shall not be abridged" mean that you have a constitutional right to print child pornography? Does the guarantee of a the free exercise of religion mean that you can choose to withhold medical treatment from your child resulting in their death in the name of religious freedom? And so.

Is that REALLY the position you are taking? REALLY?
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
If you don't LIKE the way the '2nd' is written, feel free to try to change it. Short of doing that, it will continue to say what it says.
Yes Larry, thats right the Second Amendment is written in stone, absolutly positively those words will not change, the meaning is exact!

No matter what anyone tells him, Larry is absolutely certain because the right to bear can not be changed.

He is absolutely certain he can bear arms into the Capital building.

He is absolutely certain he can bear arms on a White House tour.

He is absolutely certain that he can carry bear arms into the local Court House.

He is absolutely certain he can bear arms on an Airliner.

He is absolutely certain he can walk down the street dragging a 50 cal Machine Gun.

He is absoultely certain that even in the event of a felony convition he could still bear arms.

He is certain about this because the Second Amendment says he can. It says he can absolutely positively bear any type of arms, anywhere and any time he wants!

This is because he is dilusional.
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
..from, who else, Jim Craik:

"Yes Larry, thats right the Second Amendment is written in stone, absolutly positively those words will not change, the meaning is exact! (Wrong. They CAN...but only by a 2/3rds vote of the states.)

No matter what anyone tells him, Larry is absolutely certain because the right to bear can not be changed. (Wrong again. It CAN. But only by a 2/3rds vote of the states.

He is absolutely certain he can bear arms into the Capital building. ("He" sure CAN. Show me where the '2nd' says I CAN'T?)

He is absolutely certain he can bear arms on a White House tour. (Ditto.)

He is absolutely certain that he can carry bear arms into the local Court House. (Ditto.)

He is absolutely certain he can bear arms on an Airliner. (Air marshalls can. Are they MORE law abiding than I?)

He is absoultely certain that even in the event of a felony convition he could still bear arms. (Wrong. The constitution provides for removal of ones rights BY DUE PROCESS - meaning the courts. Were it otherwise, as I've mentioned elsewhere before, no one could be thrown into jail/prison.)

He is certain about this because the Second Amendment says he can. It says he can absolutely positively bear arms anywhere and any time he wants (Show me where it says otherwise. Go ahead. I'd like to read it), just as it says nothing about a felon being barred from possessing a gun (Read again my comment in the paragraph above.)................................good luck with that!"


I'm really getting tired of this merry-go-round.


(Edit) You added this after the fact: "He is absolutely certain he can walk down the street dragging a 50 cal Machine Gun." (Yes, he is. Nothing in the '2nd' says otherwise...however, I myself would not choose to "drag" it. 'Carry' would be better. )
 
Last edited:
...from Cliffbeer2:

"The bottom line is that police have a perspective on gun laws which makes sense to a policeman's job - they want to be armed so as to have the authority to carry out the law, but they don't really want members of the public to be TOO well armed (The Founders felt otherwise. I'll get into that in a moment), and they certainly don't want criminals to be armed.

That perspective is just that...a perspective which is a sub-set of the overall population which is most likely not representative of the whole population. (Just as your post is a sub-set and most likely not representative of the whole population.)

I feel like I'm a fairly typical gun owner. I have a few "sporting" guns in my possession such as a 12 gauge shot gun, a basic hunting rifle, and a 1911 9mm handgun. The 1911 I just bought a couple weeks ago and the whole process makes complete sense: a background check to make sure you're not a crazy or a dangerous criminal, and a waiting period to make sure you're not a nut frothing with blood lust because you just caught your wife in bed with another man. (Here in Wash. St. anyone with a CCW can buy a handgun and walk out the door with it on the spot. Of course, the 2nd amend guarantees he can do that regardless.)

There's no need for full-auto weapons and there's no need for heavy artillery. KEEP IN MIND, DURING THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH OR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMSWAS ESTABLISHED, the available weapons for people to arm themselves with consisted of very poor and inaccurate weapons which were slow to fire. SO WHY WOULD WE EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO WIELD A FULL AUTO 50 CAL BASED UPON THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT(!!!)? Do we need that to defend ourselves from a home invasion? Or are we worried there's a modern-day King of England trying to take away our freedoms and we do, in fact, need heavy artillery? (The Founders knew the English language pretty well, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you say they had more than a basic grasp of the meaning of the words IN it? You darn betcha they did. If they had intended to limit the people's right to "keep and bear" only to the arms of their day - THEY'D HAVE S-A-I-D SO. But they DIDN'T. They purposely said "arms" instead of "muzzle loaders, flintlocks and bayonets" because they KNEW "arms" would change/advance over the years and they wanted "the people" to have access TO them. Why? So that "the people" wouldn't be OUTGUNNED by a tyrantical govt. The whole PURPOSE of the 2nd Amend was to ensure that "the people" could not be enslaved by same. (Read the Federalist Papers.) Further: The Founders ALSO did not say, "If at some time in the future someone somewhere decides that 'arms' have become too deadly for the people to be intrusted with them, at that time the govt shall have the authority to dictate what 'arms' the people can and cannot own and carry...HOW MANY ROUNDS their arms can hold, WHERE said arms can and CANNOT be carried, and whether the people can carry said arms CONCEALED or in the open." If they had intended any of that be the case - THEY'D HAVE SAID SO. Instead they said we have the right to keep and bear - PERIOD.

Net, I think most gun owners today are actually pretty responsible and very middle-of-the-road about it - they support background checks, limitations on the size/caliber of guns, restrictions on the rate of fire, registration requirements, waiting periods, etc. ('Pure horse feathers!!! Only lefty, anti-gunners think that way! Those are ALL "infringements". Every darned one of them. And as such they're ALL unconstitutional...it matters not what some lefty anti-gunner in a black robe has to say about it...'how he "interprets" those laws.) They don't want guns in school and they think the NRA is a bit "out there" with some of its policy statemetns being too fundamentalist. (Again - that's the lefty anti-gun crowd's thinking. THEY don't want to see an armed 'good guy' guarding our kids in school. Nooooo problemo with armed guards watching over their MONEY in a bank...or armed guards patroling THEIR property - but, by golly, 'yeeeeeeeeew' better keep 'them there' armed guards 'outta' our schools! Besides, we already have the "GUN-FREE ZONE" laws! THEY provide an 'iron dome' of absolute safety and protection for our kids. No one would EVER DARE to even bring a gun into a school let alone shoot anyone therein with it. Besides, if anyone DID - someone within the school could always use SCISSORS to fend him off...) Of course, there's a very vocal minority of gun owners who are much more fundamentalist about it all, and they get a disproportionate amount of air time for their gripes. Why? Because they're loud mouths. This group is a very small percentage of the population I think. (Well, at least you didn't call 'em stupid. But, be advised, they represent a bit more than just a "very small percentage" of the population.)

We live in a complex and increasingly crowded world where absolute rights work less and less well. (The Founders ALSO did not say, "When the world becomes too crowded and absolute rights seem to be working less and less well............") We need to be willing to consider the rights of others and compromise our own individualist desires and consider the needs of the greater good. (Thank you, Karl Marx.) It's called living in a civilized society. (History has called it by other names.) I know I don't want some crazy living next door with a bunch of automatic assault type weapons which aren't registered and laying around for my kids to see. Does that make me a "liberal"? If it does, I'll gladly accept that label and be proud of it." (You still have that right............so far.)

Obviously, the comments in (red) are mine...
Larry, what's with the antagonism here? How about chilling out a bit eh?

This is a collegial automotive forum, not hondachat.com.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Yes Larry, thats right the Second Amendment is written in stone, absolutly positively those words will not change, the meaning is exact!

No matter what anyone tells him, Larry is absolutely certain because the right to bear can not be changed.

He is absolutely certain he can bear arms into the Capital building.

He is absolutely certain he can bear arms on a White House tour.

He is absolutely certain that he can carry bear arms into the local Court House.

He is absolutely certain he can bear arms on an Airliner.

He is absolutely certain he can walk down the street dragging a 50 cal Machine Gun.

He is absoultely certain that even in the event of a felony convition he could still bear arms.

He is certain about this because the Second Amendment says he can. It says he can absolutely positively bear any type of arms, anywhere and any time he wants!

This is because he is dilusional.
Larry,

You try any of those things you will be arrested. You can pretend that you have a right to do those things, you can demand your right to do those things, but you absolutely can not do any of them, and even you know it!
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry,

You try any of those things you will be arrested. You can pretend that you have a right to do those things, you can demand your right to do those things, but you absolutely can not do any of them, and even you know it!
I'm not "pretending". The constitution clearly grants us the right. But, we have allowed the govt to take our rights away in those instances. That doesn't change the fact that the laws you cite are NOT AT ALL constitutional. Legally speaking, those laws are therefore unenforceable because, according to the constitution, those unconstitutional laws were null and void the instant they were signed. Again - we the people have allowed those laws to stand.

Oh, and incidentally, I "absolutely physically CAN do any of them"...but the cost to me in time and $$$ after the fact to prove in court that I have the right to do so would be prohibitive (and the outcome would totally depend on the political makeup of the courts anyway - NOT on what the constitution actually says. Were that not the case - it'd be a slam dunk). Anyway, what you meant to say was I'd be violating the law if I did those things...
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Let's try again Larry since you didn't answer it before. Do you think the founders intended the 1st and 2nd amendments to allow you the right to print child pornography, to withhold life saving treatment from your child on religious grounds, to be mentally insane and own AR-15s, or to be sane and have a bazooka in your back yard?

Is that your position? And do you believe the founders intended that as well?
 
Top