Like Tree101Likes

Thread: Way to go, genius...

  1. #251
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I posted a picture of an individual with his finger inside the trigger guard. According to my hunters safety class from back in the 60's I have to assume a weapon is loaded until proven otherwise.
    Then we can assume that he was ready to fire and assume the consequences. Doesn't make him "irresponsible."

    Regardless of what you believe in selective enforcement it doesn't change the fact these idiots weren't acting under anyone's legal authority to engage federal agents doing their jobs.
    The US people don't need "legal authority" to question the actions of their government, nor engage those agents of the government. Even those citizens aren't "anti-goverment" can still be vigilant in standing or what they believe is right.

    They are clearly idiots given they were supporting someone who is a thief with no legal basis.
    Once found guilty of a crime, a citizen is no longer deserving of support in their endeavor? And those who choose to support him are idiots? Not all rulings are completely right - if they were, we wouldn't have courts of appeals.

    Again, you're resorting to name calling and it minimizes your argument.
    Last edited by BoxAlarm187; 05-12-2014 at 03:41 PM.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  2. #252
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    What was irresponsible? Did they have their fingers inside the trigger guards? Were the safeties off? We they looking into the barrels of loaded weapons?

    No, they were prepared the engage the government as a show of frustration with selective enforcement of standing laws. You think they're idiots (which is obviously your right), but they obviously had a enough horsepower to make a difference in the decision making of the government that you blindly throw your allegiance behind.

    They weren't idiots, they clearly made a calculated decision which happened to involve firearms, and because they represent a different set of values than you have, you resort to insulting them with names. Pot, meet kettle.
    To quote my esteemed colleague:

    BING FREAKING O!!
    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

  3. #253
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    They were only forced to this point after Bundy ignored legal judgements against him that have been levied over the last 20 years.
    You have no issue with the government using advanced tactics and weaponry because the man didn't pay a fine for two decades and his bovine were munching on some brush in the desert?
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  4. #254
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've made nothing but rational arguments about guns. Your claim that I don't like them is ludicrous given that I own several and shoot frequently.
    Golly, you own and shoot frequently... Pretty sure that's the same argument Obama made before this picture came out.
    "Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,"
    Name:  Obama_shooting2.jpg
Views: 63
Size:  17.3 KB

    Keep sticking to your script, it's working so well for you already.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Are you okay? You sound pretty emotional in that paragraph. I jump down LAFE's throat because he is an embarrassment to the fire service. Which is a separate topic about firearms policy.
    Yep, I'm good. You're right, it is a separate argument. Other than the fact that you grasping at straws to try and defend gun control is exactly what you accuse LAFE of doing to justify the way he decides is best for his department to operate. And no, that's not defending LAFE, because you know as well as I do that I've had my go rounds with him about how him and his department operates.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    It doesn't say anything about magazine capacity.
    You're right... It doesn't say ANYTHING about magazine capacity, including whether or not you can decide how many rounds I can carry.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    In fact the Supreme Court has ruled or upheld numerous laws that restrict what types of weapons a private citizen is allowed to own.
    No argument there. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or you, or any of your cohorts who also wish to limit my rights to my personal property.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    So in the case involving Cliven Bundy, what was the emergency and what army was being supplemented?
    What army was being supplemented when the first American Revolution happened? Oh that's right, there wasn't an army. It was a band of citizens who rose up because they were sick and tired of the tyrannical bullschit from the British... But that's okay, fighting for our freedoms and independence from a foreign nation is alright, as long as we bow to the power of our own tyrannical government, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Once again. In the case of Cliven Bundy, what state was under threat of being in danger?
    How about all of them? How about all 50 states. How about your freedom, how about my freedom, how about every American Citizens freedom from an over-reaching federal government?

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    As I pointed out earlier. The 2nd Amendment is not an absolute.
    Uhhh, nope, disagree with you there. If you read the text, it seems pretty absolute to me. It doesn't say "Shall not be infringed unless for the greater good of peoples feelings." Yes, it's about feelings. Show me some evidence that suggests gun control has helped lessen violent crime in this country.... Still waiting....

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    There are numerous laws that restrict the types of weapons one is allowed to legally own.
    Wow, really? There is? Hm, never would have known that. Is that why I can't go out and buy a suppressor for my pistol (without paying the Feds a hefty tax, and giving them the knowledge of what I own) so that, GOD FORBID, if someone should break into my home and try to harm my family, that I wouldn't go deaf from the percussive blast that is to follow if I have to fire said pistol in my apartment... Yeah, those laws and restrictions are clearly in place for the good of man...

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Getting back to the Cliven Bundy episode. What "properly operated military force" were these civilians supplementing? Since they were not acting under any legal authority, the rest of your assertion falls apart.
    Okay, so ONE small piece of my argument may or may not have fallen apart, because you don't perceive a need for the people of this country to remain free... One part of my argument, versus your entire argument falling apart... Yeah I can deal with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The law and courts disagree with you.
    Again, golly you're smart. Is that also why I can't own a short barreled rifle or short barreled shotgun? Tell me, if unjust laws are just that, then what do you have to say about the Jim Crow laws, or slavery, that were clearly overturned because they were completely unjust and oppressed and criminalized an entire group of people simply because they were different? Those were overturned... How well did prohibition work? Oh that's right... It didn't...

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    This was fun. Please come back when you're not in such an emotional tizzy.
    Personal attacks... Hmm.. I seem to remember you telling another poster that they had to revert to personal attacks because they couldn't back their argument up.......

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The same place that allowed the passage of laws like the Gun Control Act of 1968. It placed significant restrictions on types of weapons and configuration that private citizens are allowed to own. The SCOTUS has upheld those restrictions despite several challenges.
    Yes, and let's look at what good those have done...
    First off, find me a school shooting, which is where this latest push for gun control has come from, that happened before the enactment of the NFA of 1934... Now let's look at WHY NFA 1934 was enacted... "The underlying purpose of the original law, however, was to reduce the use of NFA firearms in crime, especially in gangland crime of the Prohibition era" So, NFA 1934 was enacted because Prohibition was such an abysmal failure, and people (criminals) were doing anything in their power to manufacture, sell, and consume alcohol that it turned into a blood bath... What makes you think anything will be different if there's a prohibition on firearms? Criminals are still getting or making weapons that are restricted by the NFA, sooo the only people it is hurting are law abiding citizens like myself.

    At the heart of GCA 1968 was the implementation of the FFL system, to limit interstate transfer of firearms between parties that weren't a federally licensed firearms dealer.
    EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION
    The bill that just past in the state of Wisconsin now allows for the purchase of long guns and shotguns from ANY State in the Union. I can go to Arkansas, buy a shotgun, and come back to WI with it. Up until this bill passed, WI Residents already had the ability to go to the border states and accomplish this, but now I can go to ANY state, buy a long gun or shotgun, and bring it back to WI legally.

    It also restricted the sale to convicted felons, or those indicted but not yet convicted of felonies, etc. It covers more than just felonies, I know, but that's the broad spectrum of it. I don't think anyone will argue with the fact that keeping (trying to keep) weapons from violent felons is a good thing. What I will argue with, is the fact that those violent felons STILL GET WEAPONS. And the blanketing of everyone that's a felon not being allowed to own a gun, I disagree with that. Tell me why a guy convicted of a NON-VIOLENT white collar crime such as felony check fraud, shouldn't be allowed the right to defend himself from the VIOLENT criminals who will get a gun?

    Let's look at something more recent, let's look at the Brady Bill that sunsetted in 2004... You are aware that facts and statistics from the FBI confirm that there has been a DECREASE in violent crime since that bill sunsetted, right? You're aware that the number of deaths by firearms has gone down every year since that sunsetter right?

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Facts support me on LAFE needing to find another line of work.
    And facts support my argument in that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to gun control, or freedom, in this country. I've poked holes in every part of your argument here, with FACTS...

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Are you out there with the idiots claiming to be protecting Bundy's rights? I've been very specific in my target of that descriptor.
    Nope, as I already said I don't think Bundy is completely innocent either.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've yet to put forth anything that precludes a law abiding citizen from being prevented the ownership of a firearm.
    No, you've just put forth arguments where you've said you want limit my magazine capacity, etc, to limit my ability to effectively defend myself... Because 7 rounds in my pistol is really going to save me from a criminal who is armed with a 30 round magazine, because he's a CRIMINAL and didn't follow the damn law to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    We know the current policies aren't working when one considers the number deaths due to firearms.
    Go ahead and ignore the fact that the deaths from firearms has GONE DOWN since the last assault weapons bill sunsetted in 2004.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Biden and his quotes are not the issue. Nice deflection attempt.
    Not deflection at all, just making sure you know what kind of dim-witted morons you're siding with.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The question you should be asking is why they aren't being enforced. Especially in places that aren't known for being liberal.
    Tell me again, what laws would have stopped any of the mass shootings in the last 5 years?

    I'll wait...
    Last edited by Chenzo; 05-12-2014 at 05:27 PM.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  5. #255
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,146

    Default

    A few quotes for you:

    “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

    “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants .”

    “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical .”

    “Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

    “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.”

    And the best of all...

    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”


    Would you label this man a wacko? An extremist? A right wing kook? One would hope not as he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, a Statesman, Scholar, and President of these United States. He is Thomas Jefferson and he believed in the people having the power, not the government and somewhere the process has become perverted.
    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. #256
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,146

    Default

    Money buys exemptions to almost all laws and gun control is no exception to that. Look at private security forces for corporations, CEOs, the wealthy, and mercenary forces that the US government employs. They all have much easier access to firearms and other weaponry that the average citizen can't acquire without massive hoop jumping, multiple layers of bureaucracy, and money. Those with money can make those acquisitions occur much faster and much easier than the average man, creating yet another layer of those heavily armed that are not the average, normal, everyday citizen.

    But then again I guess that is okay in some eyes.
    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. #257
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,624

    Default

    All this good ole' fashioned common sense is making me thirsty.

    Too bad I'm not anywhere near a fire station with a bar.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  8. #258
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If I use that logic, any land not being utilized for human habitation is fair game for anyone to utilize.
    What he's saying, and you're choosing to ignore because it doesn't fit your needs here, is FEDERALLY owned land, not the empty lot that is owned by Joe Schmo.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  9. #259
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Not relevant to your unwillingness to condemn the gun toting lunatics pointing their weapons at federal agents doing their jobs.
    Here, you want to talk about responsible gun handling? Okay, let's do that...

    Here's Diane Feinstein. An 80 year old woman, Senator from your very own state, and the self proclaimed advocate for gun control. She's the one who thinks I'm not smart enough or safe enough to own an AR with a 30, 40, 100 round magazine.
    Name:  difi2.jpg
Views: 62
Size:  16.2 KB

    Standing in front of a crowd, with her finger on the trigger of an AK-47... Yep, the old bag leading the charge for gun control and gun safety can't manage to accomplish one of the basic principles of gun safety.

    Now, on the other hand, here is a 9 year old little girl. Notice where her finger is? NOWHERE near the trigger.
    Name:  2012-12-25 14.43.09.jpg
Views: 58
Size:  79.6 KB
    9 years old, and she knows better than to put her booger hook on the bangswitch when she's not ready to shoot something...

    So, yeah... Which one of these two is the irresponsible one? The 9 year old, or the old woman 9 times her senior?

    Even better, she's studying Prohibition in school. I asked her what prohibition was, and she explained it. I asked her why prohibition didn't work, and she said "because the people who wanted to drink just ignored it and drank anyway." To which, without any coaxing, followed up with "I don't get why they're trying to do the same thing with guns. If they take all the guns away the bad guys will just find a way to get them anyway."

    Hmm, kinda sad that a now 10 year old understands it and can wrap her head around it, but you can't.....
    BoxAlarm187 and dfelix22000us like this.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  10. #260
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,146

    Default

    Sic him boys! Or better yet just ignore him...

    I have more important things to do.
    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

  11. #261
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    Then we can assume that he was ready to fire and assume the consequences. Doesn't make him "irresponsible."
    It does when the possibility of an innocent being killed could result.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    The US people don't need "legal authority" to question the actions of their government, nor engage those agents of the government. Even those citizens aren't "anti-goverment" can still be vigilant in standing or what they believe is right.
    The agents were the ones acting with legality. The actions of the gun toting idiots were there to intimidate. Bundy was afforded due process. Those supposedly "standing vigilant" may have believed what they were doing is right, but it wasn't right. Big difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    Once found guilty of a crime, a citizen is no longer deserving of support in their endeavor? And those who choose to support him are idiots? Not all rulings are completely right - if they were, we wouldn't have courts of appeals.
    Not when the object of their so called protection has lost every court case in every court over the last 20 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    Again, you're resorting to name calling and it minimizes your argument.
    In the case of those in Bunkerville, NV it is well deserved.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    You have no issue with the government using advanced tactics and weaponry because the man didn't pay a fine for two decades and his bovine were munching on some brush in the desert?
    Not when the individual has stated he (and his wife) are armed and am prepared to fight to protect his cows that are trespassing.
    Last edited by scfire86; 05-12-2014 at 07:39 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #262
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Golly, you own and shoot frequently... Pretty sure that's the same argument Obama made before this picture came out.
    "Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,"

    Keep sticking to your script, it's working so well for you already.
    Really? So you believe because I believe in limiting magazine capacity I don't know how to shoot or don't own guns? BTW, one of the guns I own is an O/U shotgun choked for skeet/skeet. Certainly you're wouldn't stereotype, right?

    I'm amused that you believe anyone who doesn't believe in your narrow minded beliefs towards firearms is anti-gun. Though I'm not surprised.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    No argument there. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or you, or any of your cohorts who also wish to limit my rights to my personal property.
    Yet you condone the trespassing of private property by Bundy and the gun toting idiots supporting him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    What army was being supplemented when the first American Revolution happened? Oh that's right, there wasn't an army. It was a band of citizens who rose up because they were sick and tired of the tyrannical bullschit from the British... But that's okay, fighting for our freedoms and independence from a foreign nation is alright, as long as we bow to the power of our own tyrannical government, right?
    Not relevant to the issue of Bundy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    How about all of them? How about all 50 states. How about your freedom, how about my freedom, how about every American Citizens freedom from an over-reaching federal government?
    How was the government overreaching? By enforcing the laws against trespassing on public lands? By demanding payment for the grazing fees and penalties he has refused to pay over the last 20 years? You're comparing him to the colonials who fought the British is almost laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Uhhh, nope, disagree with you there. If you read the text, it seems pretty absolute to me. It doesn't say "Shall not be infringed unless for the greater good of peoples feelings." Yes, it's about feelings. Show me some evidence that suggests gun control has helped lessen violent crime in this country.... Still waiting....
    Just because no one here agrees with me doesn't make your position right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Wow, really? There is? Hm, never would have known that. Is that why I can't go out and buy a suppressor for my pistol (without paying the Feds a hefty tax, and giving them the knowledge of what I own) so that, GOD FORBID, if someone should break into my home and try to harm my family, that I wouldn't go deaf from the percussive blast that is to follow if I have to fire said pistol in my apartment... Yeah, those laws and restrictions are clearly in place for the good of man...
    Regardless, they are still valid. Which counters your claims about your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Okay, so ONE small piece of my argument may or may not have fallen apart, because you don't perceive a need for the people of this country to remain free... One part of my argument, versus your entire argument falling apart... Yeah I can deal with that.
    Excellent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Again, golly you're smart. Is that also why I can't own a short barreled rifle or short barreled shotgun? Tell me, if unjust laws are just that, then what do you have to say about the Jim Crow laws, or slavery, that were clearly overturned because they were completely unjust and oppressed and criminalized an entire group of people simply because they were different? Those were overturned... How well did prohibition work? Oh that's right... It didn't...
    Again, don't like the law? Change it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Yes, and let's look at what good those have done...
    First off, find me a school shooting, which is where this latest push for gun control has come from, that happened before the enactment of the NFA of 1934... Now let's look at WHY NFA 1934 was enacted... "The underlying purpose of the original law, however, was to reduce the use of NFA firearms in crime, especially in gangland crime of the Prohibition era" So, NFA 1934 was enacted because Prohibition was such an abysmal failure, and people (criminals) were doing anything in their power to manufacture, sell, and consume alcohol that it turned into a blood bath... What makes you think anything will be different if there's a prohibition on firearms? Criminals are still getting or making weapons that are restricted by the NFA, sooo the only people it is hurting are law abiding citizens like myself.
    Not relevant to those acting on their own in Bunkerville, NV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    At the heart of GCA 1968 was the implementation of the FFL system, to limit interstate transfer of firearms between parties that weren't a federally licensed firearms dealer.
    EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION
    The bill that just past in the state of Wisconsin now allows for the purchase of long guns and shotguns from ANY State in the Union. I can go to Arkansas, buy a shotgun, and come back to WI with it. Up until this bill passed, WI Residents already had the ability to go to the border states and accomplish this, but now I can go to ANY state, buy a long gun or shotgun, and bring it back to WI legally.

    It also restricted the sale to convicted felons, or those indicted but not yet convicted of felonies, etc. It covers more than just felonies, I know, but that's the broad spectrum of it. I don't think anyone will argue with the fact that keeping (trying to keep) weapons from violent felons is a good thing. What I will argue with, is the fact that those violent felons STILL GET WEAPONS. And the blanketing of everyone that's a felon not being allowed to own a gun, I disagree with that. Tell me why a guy convicted of a NON-VIOLENT white collar crime such as felony check fraud, shouldn't be allowed the right to defend himself from the VIOLENT criminals who will get a gun?

    Let's look at something more recent, let's look at the Brady Bill that sunsetted in 2004... You are aware that facts and statistics from the FBI confirm that there has been a DECREASE in violent crime since that bill sunsetted, right? You're aware that the number of deaths by firearms has gone down every year since that sunsetter right?



    And facts support my argument in that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to gun control, or freedom, in this country. I've poked holes in every part of your argument here, with FACTS...



    Nope, as I already said I don't think Bundy is completely innocent either.



    No, you've just put forth arguments where you've said you want limit my magazine capacity, etc, to limit my ability to effectively defend myself... Because 7 rounds in my pistol is really going to save me from a criminal who is armed with a 30 round magazine, because he's a CRIMINAL and didn't follow the damn law to begin with.



    Go ahead and ignore the fact that the deaths from firearms has GONE DOWN since the last assault weapons bill sunsetted in 2004.



    Not deflection at all, just making sure you know what kind of dim-witted morons you're siding with.



    Tell me again, what laws would have stopped any of the mass shootings in the last 5 years?

    I'll wait...
    This last bit of rambling is pretty much all over the map. What it proves again is that the government is quite capable of placing restrictions on firearms ownership. That is the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    What he's saying, and you're choosing to ignore because it doesn't fit your needs here, is FEDERALLY owned land, not the empty lot that is owned by Joe Schmo.
    What's the difference. Neither are owned by Bundy. Both of your are stating you condone trespassing. Which is what Bundy was doing.
    Last edited by scfire86; 05-12-2014 at 07:48 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #263
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    A few quotes for you:

    “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

    “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants .”

    “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical .”

    “Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

    “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.”

    And the best of all...

    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”


    Would you label this man a wacko? An extremist? A right wing kook? One would hope not as he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, a Statesman, Scholar, and President of these United States. He is Thomas Jefferson and he believed in the people having the power, not the government and somewhere the process has become perverted.
    Nice quotes. As I pointed out earlier, we are not governed by nice little quotes. We are governed by the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Money buys exemptions to almost all laws and gun control is no exception to that. Look at private security forces for corporations, CEOs, the wealthy, and mercenary forces that the US government employs. They all have much easier access to firearms and other weaponry that the average citizen can't acquire without massive hoop jumping, multiple layers of bureaucracy, and money. Those with money can make those acquisitions occur much faster and much easier than the average man, creating yet another layer of those heavily armed that are not the average, normal, everyday citizen.

    But then again I guess that is okay in some eyes.
    What's your point? Those entities have to comply with very strict oversight. Something you have made clear you oppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Sic him boys! Or better yet just ignore him...

    I have more important things to do.
    Yes you do. Like posting more irrelevant quotes.
    Last edited by scfire86; 05-12-2014 at 07:40 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #264
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Here, you want to talk about responsible gun handling? Okay, let's do that...

    Here's Diane Feinstein. An 80 year old woman, Senator from your very own state, and the self proclaimed advocate for gun control. She's the one who thinks I'm not smart enough or safe enough to own an AR with a 30, 40, 100 round magazine.
    Attachment 23412

    Standing in front of a crowd, with her finger on the trigger of an AK-47... Yep, the old bag leading the charge for gun control and gun safety can't manage to accomplish one of the basic principles of gun safety.

    Now, on the other hand, here is a 9 year old little girl. Notice where her finger is? NOWHERE near the trigger.
    Attachment 23413
    9 years old, and she knows better than to put her booger hook on the bangswitch when she's not ready to shoot something...

    So, yeah... Which one of these two is the irresponsible one? The 9 year old, or the old woman 9 times her senior?

    Even better, she's studying Prohibition in school. I asked her what prohibition was, and she explained it. I asked her why prohibition didn't work, and she said "because the people who wanted to drink just ignored it and drank anyway." To which, without any coaxing, followed up with "I don't get why they're trying to do the same thing with guns. If they take all the guns away the bad guys will just find a way to get them anyway."

    Hmm, kinda sad that a now 10 year old understands it and can wrap her head around it, but you can't.....
    Neither are relevant to the episode in Bunkerville, NV. I don't agree with DiFi's weapon handling either.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #265
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The agents were the ones acting with legality. The actions of the gun toting idiots were there to intimidate. Bundy was afforded due process. Those supposedly "standing vigilant" may have believed what they were doing is right, but it wasn't right. Big difference.
    No one said that the government agents were acting illegally.

    Yes, perhaps his supporters were there to intimidate, which apparently worked. Whether one thinks what they did was "right" or not doesn't mean that what they were doing was illegal either. You stated earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Regardless of what you believe in selective enforcement it doesn't change the fact these idiots weren't acting under anyone's legal authority to engage federal agents doing their jobs.
    Again, as American citizens, they don't need the "legal authority" to stand up against their government. It's one of the great things about living in this country.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  16. #266
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    No one said that the government agents were acting illegally.
    Then what was their purpose?

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    Yes, perhaps his supporters were there to intimidate, which apparently worked. Whether one thinks what they did was "right" or not doesn't mean that what they were doing was illegal either.
    SO YOU'RE OKAY WITH INTIMIDATION AGAINST THOSE DOING THEIR JOBS?!!?

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    You stated earlier:

    Again, as American citizens, they don't need the "legal authority" to stand up against their government. It's one of the great things about living in this country.
    I would agree with you if the government had been doing something wrong. That wasn't the case here. Bundy had been afforded his rights under due process and lost.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #267
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    SO YOU'RE OKAY WITH INTIMIDATION AGAINST THOSE DOING THEIR JOBS?!!?
    No need to shout, we're all in the same room.

    Am I okay with it? I don't know how long it's been since you retired, or what kind of area you served in, but there are a lot of us that get intimidated at work every day - and we're the "good guys!" I come from a LE background, and understand that intimidation is a way of life for LEO's - if they weren't ready to deal with civilians trying to intimidate them, then they ought to find a different line of work.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  18. #268
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    No need to shout, we're all in the same room.

    Am I okay with it? I don't know how long it's been since you retired, or what kind of area you served in, but there are a lot of us that get intimidated at work every day - and we're the "good guys!" I come from a LE background, and understand that intimidation is a way of life for LEO's - if they weren't ready to deal with civilians trying to intimidate them, then they ought to find a different line of work.
    If you're still trying to defend the gun toting lunatics defending Bundy this statement makes no sense.

    If those doing the intimidating were willing to face the consequences I might be sympathetic.

    Bundy was breaking the law. Those intimidating him were breaking the law as well. If these gun toting idiots had a track record of coming to the aid of those protesting the government they might have a better case. But they don't. In fact conservative wackos like these have a track record of supporting LEO's for these types of actions when it is groups they don't like.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #269
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I know the 2nd Amendment says nothing about caliber, action type, or magazine capacity.

    It says one has the right to bear arms. Nothing else.

    Hence the reason for not answering your question.

    Let's get back to the issue of a bunch of gun toting idiots pointing firearms at federal agents doing their job. Not exactly a shining example of responsible firearms handling.
    You won't answer the question because you know I'll embarass you yet again. You're getting confused, because I've never made any statements regarding Clive Bundy's incident here. But I suspect that it's just your feeble attempt to ignore the question. Right out of the Liberal handbook. You are the LA of Firearms and the 2nd Amendment.
    (Sorry LA, I had to put it into terms he would understand)
    Chenzo likes this.

  20. #270
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    You won't answer the question because you know I'll embarass you yet again. You're getting confused, because I've never made any statements regarding Clive Bundy's incident here. But I suspect that it's just your feeble attempt to ignore the question. Right out of the Liberal handbook. You are the LA of Firearms and the 2nd Amendment.
    (Sorry LA, I had to put it into terms he would understand)
    The courts have determined that restrictions can be placed on what types of weapons one may own. Don't like it? Change the law.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #271
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The courts have determined that restrictions can be placed on what types of weapons one may own. Don't like it? Change the law.
    YOU'RE the one that's trying to change the rules, just like liberals would like to change the laws. (and can't) My firearms are legal, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I DON'T need to change any laws. The laws that are in place need to be ENFORCED, and the 2nd Amendment needs to be respected.
    Again, YOU'RE the one calling for a ban like Austrailia, and magazine limitations, clearly contrarly to the Constitution and the reality of gun ownership in this country. You are THREE TIMES as likely to be killed by a lightning strike as you are to be killed in a mass shooting, and most of those are committed by handguns. Ergo, your arguement for magazine size limits are MOOT.

    If you're so well versed on firearms and the Constitution, answer the question. Otherwise, you just prove your ignorance and sidestepping skills.

  22. #272
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    896

    Default

    I've always thought of firefighters as law and order type guys. It looks more and more as if we are LAWS WE LIKE kind of guys. Land ownership appears to be open to interpretation. Apparently, we don't have to recognize it unless we like the landowner and everything he does. Court decisions apparently are meaningless. We'll support a guy like Bundy who deserves no support. The law is what the law is. He has flouted it for decades. This is NOT a case of a tyrannical government denying the citizens of their God given rights. Some say it's OK because the land belongs to the big bad government. Or it's OK because the government shouldn't own so much land in the first place. WTF? I'll repeat that. WTF?

    It comes down to this being a nation of laws and a civilized society (for the most part). No individual or group of individuals gets to decide which laws they'll follow or when. Unless they want to go to jail. There is probably not one individual in this country who agrees with every law he/she is subject to. But we live with it. Because we have to if the society is going to continue. There are mechanisms in place to enact new laws, alter existing laws and even strike down existing laws. We have representation at all levels. We have elections to change representatives. The people who showed up and aimed (presumably) loaded weapons at law enforcement officials were out of line. Period. Can anyone legitimately defend those individuals without going off on tangents? There are procedures in place. They should have used them. If they were unsuccessful in that they should have accepted that they hold a minority position and live with it. Instead, they acted like spoiled children. As far as I know the government wasn't coming after them or their land or their cattle or anything else. Personally I believe they were just putting on a show. If any real shooting started they would most likely crap themselves and run away. Why else would the one guy (seen in the photo posted earlier in this thread) bring his wife or girlfriend or sister or daughter or whatever along? She is clearly seen to his right while her head appears to be exposed above the barrier that he hides behind. He looks to me like a classic case of a guy who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. But I don't get to make that call. Because one man's opinion doesn't mean squat in America. Except on Election Day. And that's just the way I like it.

    This is NOT a second amendment issue. This is NOT a tyrannical government issue. If we take politics out of it, it's hardly an issue at all.

    I'll take this opportunity to remind some of you that the second amendment does not stand alone. It is part of a bigger document. We have to honor the entire document. We don't get to pick and choose like it's a Chinese menu. That document established the Supreme Court, which has ruled on gun control. It has accepted some level of control as being constitutional. Like it or not, the opinion of the court holds more water than yours does. Or mine. We must honor those rulings. Or work to change them, but we still have to abide by the law while we work to change it. If we don't we are like the common thug who decides he doesn't want to live within the law. I'm pretty sure I know how firefighters feel about those guys.

    For the record: I have no interest in supporting anyone who wants to take away guns from the American people.
    islandfire03 and rm1524 like this.

  23. #273
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I've always thought of firefighters as law and order type guys. It looks more and more as if we are LAWS WE LIKE kind of guys. Land ownership appears to be open to interpretation. Apparently, we don't have to recognize it unless we like the landowner and everything he does. Court decisions apparently are meaningless. We'll support a guy like Bundy who deserves no support. The law is what the law is. He has flouted it for decades. This is NOT a case of a tyrannical government denying the citizens of their God given rights. Some say it's OK because the land belongs to the big bad government. Or it's OK because the government shouldn't own so much land in the first place. WTF? I'll repeat that. WTF?

    It comes down to this being a nation of laws and a civilized society (for the most part). No individual or group of individuals gets to decide which laws they'll follow or when. Unless they want to go to jail. There is probably not one individual in this country who agrees with every law he/she is subject to. But we live with it. Because we have to if the society is going to continue. There are mechanisms in place to enact new laws, alter existing laws and even strike down existing laws. We have representation at all levels. We have elections to change representatives. The people who showed up and aimed (presumably) loaded weapons at law enforcement officials were out of line. Period. Can anyone legitimately defend those individuals without going off on tangents? There are procedures in place. They should have used them. If they were unsuccessful in that they should have accepted that they hold a minority position and live with it. Instead, they acted like spoiled children. As far as I know the government wasn't coming after them or their land or their cattle or anything else. Personally I believe they were just putting on a show. If any real shooting started they would most likely crap themselves and run away. Why else would the one guy (seen in the photo posted earlier in this thread) bring his wife or girlfriend or sister or daughter or whatever along? She is clearly seen to his right while her head appears to be exposed above the barrier that he hides behind. He looks to me like a classic case of a guy who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. But I don't get to make that call. Because one man's opinion doesn't mean squat in America. Except on Election Day. And that's just the way I like it.

    This is NOT a second amendment issue. This is NOT a tyrannical government issue. If we take politics out of it, it's hardly an issue at all.

    I'll take this opportunity to remind some of you that the second amendment does not stand alone. It is part of a bigger document. We have to honor the entire document. We don't get to pick and choose like it's a Chinese menu. That document established the Supreme Court, which has ruled on gun control. It has accepted some level of control as being constitutional. Like it or not, the opinion of the court holds more water than yours does. Or mine. We must honor those rulings. Or work to change them, but we still have to abide by the law while we work to change it. If we don't we are like the common thug who decides he doesn't want to live within the law. I'm pretty sure I know how firefighters feel about those guys.

    For the record: I have no interest in supporting anyone who wants to take away guns from the American people.
    Perfectly said and I agree with you on all points.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #274
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,146

    Default

    And yet the Founding Fathers not only expected but encouraged standing up to the government when appropriate. So maybe some people on here need to do some research on the thoughts of those first revolutionaries and founders of our country.

    Do I believe Bundy is 100% innocent? No, I don't. Do I believe the government attempted to handle this incident properly? No, I don't. Stubborness, crowds, a show of armed force, almost lead to a disaster. Again, I believe publicity, and news coverage, prevented a blood bath.
    BoxAlarm187 likes this.
    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

  25. #275
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,690

    Default

    Wow, did this thread take a left turn.
    "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?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Nero Looks Like a Genius
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 01:53 PM
  2. Real Men of Genius
    By MarcusKspn in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 06:31 AM
  3. Doesn't take a genius to be a criminal...
    By BC79er_OLDDELETE in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-22-2006, 01:45 PM
  4. Another Genius
    By pfd4life in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-09-2006, 11:03 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-10-2002, 12:56 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

Log in

Click here to log in or register