Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 28 of 61 FirstFirst ... 182526272829303138 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 1213
Like Tree82Likes

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

  1. #541
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I would say that it is bad policy to ignore a CURRENTproblem because we're worried about what MIGHT happen in the future. Laws, once passed, are not carved into stone. They can be, and are, changed when necessary.
    But the problem is that restricting gun sales to law abiding persons will do little if anything for the current problem either.

    We are a country that is very used to far more freedom than most of the world, in a lot of areas, and that includes the right to own guns for whatever reason we so choose.

    While I have no major issues with universal background checks I do see it opening the door to restrictions down the line, and yes, that is a concern of mine that would preclude me from supporting universal background checks now, especially given the current president's history of executive orders and modifying legislation illegally.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.


  2. #542
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    If you study and understand the reason the founding fathers included the 2nd Ammendment was to allow citizens to be armed to defend against a tyrannical government then NO, there should be no restrictions. Reality is that it is simply not practical to expect citizens to be armed similar to the military today. But that is already regulated and the fact is there is nothing in the constitution about background checks or registration of firearms.
    Constitution grants freedom of religion, yet in most places polygamy is illegal.

    Constitution grants free speech, yet inciting to riot is illegal. Slander and libel can bring punishment.

    Constitution grants protection from warrantless search, yet there are exceptions.

    The fact that the constitution doesn't mention it does not mean it is prohibited. There are literally millions of laws, regulations and qualifiers on almost every right we have. Why should gun ownership be any different?

    That is the crux of it for me. We willingly accept regulation after restriction after prohibition in practically every area of our lives on a daily basis. How can a responsible gun owner reject reasonable attempts to keep people safe? We'll spend half a day registering a car or waiting for the cable guy but God forbid we put up with a background check when buying a deadly weapon!

  3. #543
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    But the problem is that restricting gun sales to law abiding persons will do little if anything for the current problem either.

    We are a country that is very used to far more freedom than most of the world, in a lot of areas, and that includes the right to own guns for whatever reason we so choose.

    While I have no major issues with universal background checks I do see it opening the door to restrictions down the line, and yes, that is a concern of mine that would preclude me from supporting universal background checks now, especially given the current president's history of executive orders and modifying legislation illegally.
    The restrictions are not aimed at law abiding persons. They are aimed at the non law abiding. Why is this a problem?

    In a political arguement, because that's all this is, both sides ratchet up the rhetoric to the extreme. Common sense and logic go out the window. Does anybody REALLY believe that this president (or any other) will send agents of the government to their houses to take their guns? Or somehow outlaw entirely the sale or manufacture of guns? The constitution that gun owners rely on so steadfastly for their rights also has measures in place to prevent such tyrannical actions. Do you believe in the constitution or not?

    Or is this the default position because you can't really make any other good arguement?

  4. #544
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Maybe not right now to a great extent ....... But depending on who comes into power in the future the mechanisms will be there the limit those who they don't think (or those who they don't want to) have guns.

    The fact is universal background checks can become a very slippery slope ... Sorta like government operated healthcare ... to some very bad situations for our freedoms down the line.
    There it is. The paradox of government according to its critics. Every day we read that government is incompetent, inefficient, and run by corrupt individuals who can't find their arses with both hands. Yet at some magical time in the future they will be hypercapable of taking away all our guns.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #545
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    I'll be honest, the last 2 days of news in the morning if enforcing the belief that background checks won't help at all.

    Yesterday news story - trial for a guy who shot another person dead in a movie theatre because he was texting his children's babysitter.

    Todays news story - trial for a guy who shot 4 kids in a car because they were playing loud music.

    Both were legally carrying their weapons. IMO, both should spend the rest of their lives in jail.


    I thank my parents for teaching me to avoid and exit from bad situations instead of pulling a gun out.
    The truth is EVERY person legally carrying a gun should make situational awareness their primary mission, and if at all possible exiting the trouble area over pulling your gun. The only time your gun should come out is when you fear for your safety or the safety of others around you.
    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

  6. #546
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Constitution grants freedom of religion, yet in most places polygamy is illegal.

    Constitution grants free speech, yet inciting to riot is illegal. Slander and libel can bring punishment.

    Constitution grants protection from warrantless search, yet there are exceptions.

    The fact that the constitution doesn't mention it does not mean it is prohibited. There are literally millions of laws, regulations and qualifiers on almost every right we have. Why should gun ownership be any different?

    That is the crux of it for me. We willingly accept regulation after restriction after prohibition in practically every area of our lives on a daily basis. How can a responsible gun owner reject reasonable attempts to keep people safe? We'll spend half a day registering a car or waiting for the cable guy but God forbid we put up with a background check when buying a deadly weapon!
    YOU may willingly accept regulation after restriction that certainly does not mean others do.

    I don't reject REASONABLE attempts to keep people safe. But until we seriously address the abysmal mental healthcare system and the revolving door policy of so called justice in this country everything else is a joke and nothing more than feel good BS.
    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

  7. #547
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    There it is. The paradox of government according to its critics. Every day we read that government is incompetent, inefficient, and run by corrupt individuals who can't find their arses with both hands. Yet at some magical time in the future they will be hypercapable of taking away all our guns.
    So super genius, how did they carry it out in Lousiana during Katrina? Illegally, and with the threat of force, or imprisonment, firearms were taken from law abiding citizens whose supposed crime was protecting their own property from looters. Many have never had their illegally confiscated firearms returned and likely never will.

    I don't think anyone is as ridiculous as your premise and believes that instantly and immediately all guns would be confiscated. The point that escapes you is all this is is anoher intrusion into law abiding citizens lives and rights with no real benefit. The Sandy Hook killer, while mentally ill, stole the firearms from his mother to commit the crimes. How do backgrund checks prevent that?
    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

  8. #548
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Because I'm not an expert. I'm a retired firefighter responding on an obscure message board. I never said I had all the answers on the topic. I stated the issued should be studied to address the details you request. I'm sure that would be part of the process.
    Ultimately, if the only thing you're looking for is universal background checks, we're closer on this issue than we may think. I'm not opposed, but I'd like to see how they'll work, who will be affected, the anticipated reduction in crimes and some assurance that this is not just a first step in a far more restrictive plan.

  9. #549
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    That is the crux of it for me. We willingly accept regulation after restriction after prohibition in practically every area of our lives on a daily basis. How can a responsible gun owner reject reasonable attempts to keep people safe? We'll spend half a day registering a car or waiting for the cable guy but God forbid we put up with a background check when buying a deadly weapon!
    The problem is that on both sides of this issue we hear a far stronger, less reasonable end game. On one hand we have the Constitutionalists who believe everyone should be able to carry whatever, whenever, the anti-gun folks use these people as the post child for whom they're fighting. On the other end, we have the people who beleive guns are too hazardous to be in the hands of any American thus any measure toward an all out ban is only a good start. These are the folks who many of us fear gain traction with every failed law. There is middle ground, but both sides need to assure the other that the fringe is just that, so the majority can move forward.

  10. #550
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    So super genius, how did they carry it out in Lousiana during Katrina? Illegally, and with the threat of force, or imprisonment, firearms were taken from law abiding citizens whose supposed crime was protecting their own property from looters. Many have never had their illegally confiscated firearms returned and likely never will.
    Brother, as much as I feel we're fighting the same fight, I feel compelled to clarify the Katrina confiscation was done by the NOPD as accounted in numerous sources. To start they'd been known as the most crooked PD in the country, personal rights wasn't their strong suit. They used the situation to stretch their mighty arm of the law and rounded up guns to "prevent" shootings. When NOPD tried to hand those firearms over to the ATF/FBI they were rebuffed and kept at arms length for violating these citizens rights. The Feds wanted nothing to do with this. This is at least how I came to understand the Katrina issue. The Feds told NOPD to return the firearms and good luck staying out of court and NOPD decided to ignore they'd ever done it.

    On the same track it was the dropping of a speedy investigation and firearms return portion of the Federal background check law that had the nation's second largest firearms support organization retract their support, likely leading to it's death.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 02-07-2014 at 12:15 PM.

  11. #551
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    So super genius, how did they carry it out in Lousiana during Katrina? Illegally, and with the threat of force, or imprisonment, firearms were taken from law abiding citizens whose supposed crime was protecting their own property from looters. Many have never had their illegally confiscated firearms returned and likely never will.
    Don't know. I wasn't there.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I don't think anyone is as ridiculous as your premise and believes that instantly and immediately all guns would be confiscated. The point that escapes you is all this is is anoher intrusion into law abiding citizens lives and rights with no real benefit. The Sandy Hook killer, while mentally ill, stole the firearms from his mother to commit the crimes. How do backgrund checks prevent that?
    They don't prevent it. Not performing a background check has the same result. Is that okay for you?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #552
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    YOU may willingly accept regulation after restriction that certainly does not mean others do.

    I don't reject REASONABLE attempts to keep people safe. But until we seriously address the abysmal mental healthcare system and the revolving door policy of so called justice in this country everything else is a joke and nothing more than feel good BS.
    Let's face it. We ALL accept plenty of government mandated restrictions, prohibitions, etc. Maybe "willingly" was a poor choice of words, but we all (including you) DO accept them. Where is the outcry over any of these restrictions other than guns? Where are the bumper stickers? Why don't candidates argue over them?

    I agree that fixing the criminal justice system needs to get done. Along with fixing a social system that glorifies the breakdown of traditional families. Along with an education system that too often doesn't educate, but babysits instead. I don't pretend that a whole bunch of laws aimed at gun ownership will solve the problem of gun violence. We won't soon address anyof these issues because the cottage industry of professional victims and protesters will cry racism and sexism loud enough and often enough to scare away the lawmakers. Then we could all get back to arguing about gun control.

  13. #553
    Forum Member HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    472

    Default

    I am actually ok with universal background checks. They must follow these guidelines though:
    1 - No record of the check can be maintained by anyone
    2 - They must be able to be completed within 1 hour so as not to infringe on the right of a person who meets the requirements to purchase a firearm
    3 - If a person is found to fail a background check, they are immediately put in custody for trying to illegally purchase a firearm (as the current forms in PA clearly state will happen)

    Here are the problems:
    1 - We all know that the government keeps records as they wish and there is no recourse if they are found in violation of that
    2 - Any delay over an hour will be blamed on "poor technical connections" or "computer problems". If you apply, and are not denied within an hour, it should be yours. The burden must be on the government to prove why not.
    3 - How many failed background checks were prosecuted last year? If I remember right, it was around 1%. What good are the checks if they don't deter the person from purchasing a weapon and only let them move on to other sources. If they try to purchase one and are not eligible, they should be prosecute. Someone having something on their record incorrectly can be fixed through the proceedings.
    SPFDRum likes this.

  14. #554
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I am actually ok with universal background checks. They must follow these guidelines though:
    1 - No record of the check can be maintained by anyone
    2 - They must be able to be completed within 1 hour so as not to infringe on the right of a person who meets the requirements to purchase a firearm
    3 - If a person is found to fail a background check, they are immediately put in custody for trying to illegally purchase a firearm (as the current forms in PA clearly state will happen)

    Here are the problems:
    1 - We all know that the government keeps records as they wish and there is no recourse if they are found in violation of that
    2 - Any delay over an hour will be blamed on "poor technical connections" or "computer problems". If you apply, and are not denied within an hour, it should be yours. The burden must be on the government to prove why not.
    3 - How many failed background checks were prosecuted last year? If I remember right, it was around 1%. What good are the checks if they don't deter the person from purchasing a weapon and only let them move on to other sources. If they try to purchase one and are not eligible, they should be prosecute. Someone having something on their record incorrectly can be fixed through the proceedings.
    No records?
    One hour?

    Again I ask: why so stringent in this one area? Do you (or anyone) insist on this standard in ANY other area of your dealings with various levels of government? I doubt it. I sure don't see or hear it.

    And why would a law abiding citizen object to record keeping?

  15. #555
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    Default

    And why would a law abiding citizen object to record keeping?
    How about we ask the law abiding citizens of Louisiana that had their legal fire arms confiscated. By cops using, wait for it, records! Amazing how that happens.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  16. #556
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    How about we ask the law abiding citizens of Louisiana that had their legal fire arms confiscated. By cops using, wait for it, records! Amazing how that happens.
    BING FREAKING O!!

    It's amazing how quickly people forget, or choose to ignore, this simple fact.

    RECORDS LEAD TO ILLEGAL CONFISCATION.
    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

  17. #557
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    This is undeniably a valid point. It is but one instance in which a natural disaster was used as a reason to confiscate weapons. There have been many other instances in many other places in which this has not happenend. Should we use one example, just ONE, to make the case against restrictions on gun ownership? Should we use one example of gun violence, just ONE even though there are thousands per year, to make the case for applying restrictions?

  18. #558
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    This is undeniably a valid point. It is but one instance in which a natural disaster was used as a reason to confiscate weapons. There have been many other instances in many other places in which this has not happenend. Should we use one example, just ONE, to make the case against restrictions on gun ownership? Should we use one example of gun violence, just ONE even though there are thousands per year, to make the case for applying restrictions?
    That's a very good point. If I were to make the reverse I would make the case that all private ownership of guns should be tightly regulated or banned because one old man shot someone to death in a theater because the victim of the shooting was texting. Or another old man pulled a gun on an eight year old girl selling girl scout cookies.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #559
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    This is undeniably a valid point. It is but one instance in which a natural disaster was used as a reason to confiscate weapons. There have been many other instances in many other places in which this has not happenend. Should we use one example, just ONE, to make the case against restrictions on gun ownership? Should we use one example of gun violence, just ONE even though there are thousands per year, to make the case for applying restrictions?
    Yet you judge EVERY gun owner because of the actions of a very, very few. With every single one of them breaking numerous laws already on the books.
    You can pretend otherwise, but your continued posts on restrictions on the legal gun owner speaks volumes...

    hy∑poc∑ri∑sy
    hiˈpškrisē
    noun
    1.
    the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  20. #560
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    Default

    SC, you toss out this universal background checks like its the holy grail. Yet I have provided 2 reasons it will fail, and fail it will. Your response, "it will get worked out in the details". Please expound on this. As this is the very same government that can't keep, maintain, or update a national criminal data base.
    Worse, when there is such a data base, the government can't even guarantee even the basics of security. As an example I give you VA medical records and the latest, the Obamacare fiasco.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

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