Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 23 of 61 FirstFirst ... 132021222324252633 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 1213
Like Tree82Likes

Thread: If the demographic fits, hope they don't acquit

  1. #441
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Sentencing should be the prerogative of the judicial authority where the crime is committed.
    And thus while crying for background checks universally you refuse to support universal penalties for gun related crime. Hypocrisy at its best.

    If sentencing should be at the control of the judiciary in the locality of the crime then gun laws should also be at the control of local government and the feds should mind their own damn business.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate


  2. #442
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    The problem is, you and so many others are talking out both sides of your mouth. At one point you note many would never raise an eyebrow or be denied access if checked, next you're saying we shouldn't oppose universal checks. I personally have no issue with universal checks on their own, but in the case the current anti-gun movement I think it's just a stepping stone toward total restrictions, which is the only thing that would solve the issues you continue to bring up. And even that would never work. Criminals will always have the upper hand as they don't bother with our pesky laws.

    More could be done toward preventing some of these crimes, but given the strong rhetoric from the anti-gun movement, those of us who might be considered moderates are forced to side with the fringe to ensure our rights are not taken in a step by step process.

    The same divide and conquer, step by step process is being successfully used to legal marijuana across the country. First it was just medical weed ("no we swear that's all we're looking to do, help those who need the pain or appetite relief"), now two states have legalized recreation use and there's more to come.
    Thanks for proving my point.

    Earlier I stated:

    I doubt any of what the both of you support would ever get past the NRA or other gun nuts.

    Both groups view any review of gun policy as a tyrannical government getting ready to oppress the masses.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #443
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    756

    Default

    But gun laws ARE at the control of local government. It's not working out so well in some places. It's too easy to move guns from one locality to another. New York City has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. So guns are brought in from other states. Plenty of gund for criminals here. Federal laws concerning gun trafficking might make a big difference.
    I don't deny that locking up career violent criminals would also help immensely. It's hard to use a gun in the commission of a crime when you're locked up. Sentences should start at 10 years and rise from there. Prisons should be like "Sherriff Joe" was running down in Arizona. Not to overly punish the inmates but to save on cost for the rest of us.

  4. #444
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    The simple fact is that guns laws are generally working out.

    The VAST majority of legal gun owners will never use their weapons to commit a crime or go on a mass killing spree. The VAST majority of gun owners use their weapons in legal and responsible ways.

    Criminals will always be able to access weapons, regardless of gun laws. There will always be guns available to them. To punish those who legally acquire weapons and legally use weapons, which is exactly what the left wants to do, is simply unconstitutional.

    The constitution grants us the right to carry guns. Period.

    There will always be a small percentage that use anything irresponsibly or illegally. There are a small percentage of drivers that drive recklessly or drunk and kill folks every single day, yet I see no mass push from the left to ban cars.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-05-2014 at 09:28 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  5. #445
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    To punish those who legally acquire weapons and legally use weapons, which is exactly what the left wants to do, is simply unconstitutional.
    How is requiring universal background checks a punishment to those who legally use firearms?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #446
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The simple fact is that guns laws are generally working out.

    The VAST majority of legal gun owners will never use their weapons to commit a crime or go on a mass killing spree. The VAST majority of gun owners use their weapons in legal and responsible ways.

    Criminals will always be able to access weapons, regardless of gun laws. There will always be guns available to them. To punish those who legally acquire weapons and legally use weapons, which is exactly what the left wants to do, is simply unconstitutional.

    The constitution grants us the right to carry guns. Period.

    There will always be a small percentage that use anything irresponsibly or illegally. There are a small percentage of drivers that drive recklessly or drunk and kill folks every single day, yet I see no mass push from the left to ban cars.
    I see several problems with this post:

    1) Gun laws may be working out where you live. In way too many places they are not. You may need to open your eyes a little more.

    2) As you pointed out, the vast majority of gun and car owners use them responsibly. Why do responsible drivers not object to speed limits, seat belt laws, licensing requirements, annual equipment inspections, registration requirements, etc? No, there is no push from the left to ban cars. Nor is there a push from the right to march on Washington to protest the above restrictions. Why is there no rhetoric about prying car keys out of your cold dead hands?

    3) As scfire86 pointed out, licensing, registration, background checks, mandatory safety classes, etc are not really punishments. They would just be government mandated conditions under which you could own a gun. Just like the government mandated conditions under which you can drive a car. Or do a ton of other stuff. I guess I should remind you that guns are one of the few, if not only things, that are designed, built and sold for the singular purpose of killing living things. I am aware that many people target shoot, but was that really the reason they bought the gun in the first place?

  7. #447
    Forum Member HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    472

    Default

    There is no constitutional right to drive a car - argument is totally irrelevant as to ownership and placing restrictions on ownership.

    On that thought though, you do not have to register a vehicle and the government does not keep a record of every car you own (unless you use them on public roads). If you purchase a vehicle to display, use as a farm implement, or use only on private lands, you do not need to register the vehicle. Why do they need a registry of every gun? If your car is stolen, it is up to you to report it including proof of ownership. The same could be done with firearms. There is no reason for a registry other than to have the ability to "recover" weapons from those the government deems unfit to own them.

    As to gun laws not working, is it the laws that are flawed, or is it that they are not enforced?

  8. #448
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I guess I should remind you that guns are one of the few, if not only things, that are designed, built and sold for the singular purpose of killing living things. I am aware that many people target shoot, but was that really the reason they bought the gun in the first place?
    So the crux of this issue for you and others is that guns are made to kill and since they serve no other purpose should be treated as serving no useful purpose?

    Guns used to kill animals for food, serve a purpose do they not? Or is killing cows with air actuated bolt guns somehow different? While I prefer to go to the store for 99% of my meals, that is not the case with everybody.

    Guns used to kill a person in the act of committing a violent crime is a useful purpose is it not? Or should we take the guns away from the police? How do you justify this to those persons who have stopped a rape or other violent crime with a firearm? Too bad?

    The problem is that universal checks won't stop most criminals, maybe a handful that start legal and become violent and use their legally owned firearm. In and of itself, I have no issue, personally I'd register my guns, I know if I ever use them I'll be justified in my mind (hopefully at least 12 others too). The problem is that when the universal checks are shown to not have done jack squat, the next step will be greater restriction ( magazine limits, action types, etc, etc).

    I'm 100% for preventing mass shootings, but in the end, unless we have zero firearms in circulation, this is a Utopian dream, and if we cannot guarantee our citizens a country free of people willing and able to do them bodily harm, then we must allow those who are legally competent to utilize firearms for the protection of their families ans selves.

    God created man, firearms made them equal. One of the two of these are fact.

  9. #449
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    There is no constitutional right to drive a car - argument is totally irrelevant as to ownership and placing restrictions on ownership.
    There is nothing being proposed that restricts responsible ownership. I have a Constitutional right to Free Speech. Yet I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Mandatory background checks do not infringe upon one's right to bear arms. I believe responsible gun owners would be leading the charge on background checks to ensure those who might use them irresponsibly would be prohibited from gaining access.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    There is no reason for a registry other than to have the ability to "recover" weapons from those the government deems unfit to own them.
    Or to know who owned them last if that weapon is used illegally.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-05-2014 at 02:32 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #450
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    The problem is that universal checks won't stop most criminals, maybe a handful that start legal and become violent and use their legally owned firearm.
    If that logic is followed to the extreme we should do away with laws that make murder illegal. After all, that hasn't prevented murder from occurring.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #451
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,895

    Default

    scfire,

    WHY won't you support mandatory universal punishments for gun related crimes? Frankly, it is simplistic to believe that universal background checks and record keeping of law abiding citizens will have any impact on crime.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  12. #452
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    scfire,

    WHY won't you support mandatory universal punishments for gun related crimes? Frankly, it is simplistic to believe that universal background checks and record keeping of law abiding citizens will have any impact on crime.
    Because I believe in judicial discretion.

    Secondly, believing that mandatory sentencing will reduce crime is just as simplistic.

    Why would you be opposed to background checks that will prevent irresponsible gun owners from gaining access to firearms?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #453
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Because I believe in judicial discretion.

    And I believe in the local communities right to set gun laws how they see fit. Plea bargaining and the elimination of true justice in sentencing is one of the reasons our entire legal system is a joke. Plea bargaining to me is just another example of corruption.


    Secondly, believing that mandatory sentencing will reduce crime is just as simplistic.

    WOW! That must be true because you say so. Prove that universal background checks will prevent crime. Oh yeah, you can't because criminals don't buy guns through legal sources. Talk about simplistic in your reasoning.

    Why would you be opposed to background checks that will prevent irresponsible gun owners from gaining access to firearms?

    Why as a law abiding citizen to I have to have yet another bit of freedom and privacy chipped away from my rights as an American citizen? The failure of your logic here is you once again support going after law abiding citizens but refuse to agree to universal, non-pleabargainable penalties for gun crimes. Punish the law breaker, not the law abider.
    This is just another one of your sing and dance arguments that makes me believe you don't believe in anything and are just an arbitrary a z z hat that likes to stir the pot.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  14. #454
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    WOW! That must be true because you say so. Prove that universal background checks will prevent crime. Oh yeah, you can't because criminals don't buy guns through legal sources. Talk about simplistic in your reasoning.
    I never said they would prevent crime. I said they would prevent irresponsible individuals from gaining access to firearms.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #455
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I never said they would prevent crime. I said they would prevent irresponsible individuals from gaining access to firearms.
    And how would you define "irresponsible"?

    If they have a DWI conviction? If they have a history of domestic violence? Or maybe they have a history of some other issue that you consider deems them as "irresponsible".

    I have no issue with universal background checks, but I do have issues when we start listing disqualifiers.

    As Fryed said, most folks that commit crimes with firearms do not acquire guns through legal channels so you are punishing those who are responsible guns legally and using them responsibility with extra steps and requirements because of the actions of those who acquire weapons illegally.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  16. #456
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    ...God created man, firearms made them equal. One of the two of these are fact...
    So a guy with a 6 shot pistol is equal to a guy with a 20 round automatic rifle?

    Maybe your 0 for 2 with facts.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  17. #457
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And how would you define "irresponsible"?
    People with criminal records, diagnosed mental illness, or a previous record of using firearms irresponsibly.

    Like the gentleman I cited earlier who pulled a gun on a girl scout knocking on his door to sell him cookies.

    Thanks for the softball.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #458
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    ...As Fryed said, most folks that commit crimes with firearms do not acquire guns through legal channels so you are punishing those who are responsible guns legally and using them responsibility with extra steps and requirements because of the actions of those who acquire weapons illegally.
    Yup. And I have no problem asking all responsible/legal users to go through a couple extra steps to help stop those few bad apples from getting firearms or even making it harder for them to get arms. If it only stops 1....what is the downside? Legal firearms owners still have access to their weapons, still can buy more, still can carry, etc. Is the only downside a little bit of inconvenience?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  19. #459
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I see several problems with this post:

    1) Gun laws may be working out where you live. In way too many places they are not. You may need to open your eyes a little more.

    They are working out here pretty well. Why the push from others in other places to change that?


    2) As you pointed out, the vast majority of gun and car owners use them responsibly. Why do responsible drivers not object to speed limits, seat belt laws, licensing requirements, annual equipment inspections, registration requirements, etc? No, there is no push from the left to ban cars. Nor is there a push from the right to march on Washington to protest the above restrictions. Why is there no rhetoric about prying car keys out of your cold dead hands?

    I'm sure most responsible gun owners would have little issues with some requirements, but the problem is that they are not likely to change current situation. The simple facts are a)Many folks who have been involved in mass shootings had little if anything in their past to deny them ownership at the time they bought the weapons and b) most everyday crime using weapons involve weapons were acquired illegally and universal background checks were simply never in play.

    3) As scfire86 pointed out, licensing, registration, background checks, mandatory safety classes, etc are not really punishments. They would just be government mandated conditions under which you could own a gun.

    And they would be additional hoops that would require additional time and costs, as well as delays, for gun owners with no intention of robbing liquor stores or shooting up college campuses. And the reason they would be required would be because of the actions of a few.

    Just like the government mandated conditions under which you can drive a car. Or do a ton of other stuff. I guess I should remind you that guns are one of the few, if not only things, that are designed, built and sold for the singular purpose of killing living things. I am aware that many people target shoot, but was that really the reason they bought the gun in the first place?
    Most people carry weapon s to hunt or for personal defense. Two perfectly legitimate reasons.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  20. #460
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Most people carry weapon s to hunt or for personal defense. Two perfectly legitimate reasons.
    And those folks will still be able to do so if a background check is done on all gun owners.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PG soon.....we hope!?
    By arhaney in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2007, 10:39 AM
  2. Not Exactly Fire Related, But It Fits.
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-28-2004, 10:48 AM
  3. Might there be hope?!!
    By BC79er_OLDDELETE in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 11:04 AM
  4. Any Hope?
    By Kiernan in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-26-2003, 08:48 PM
  5. Hope for the best?
    By Bones42 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-15-2003, 08:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts