Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Limiting Police to firearms

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    99

    Post imported post

    My brother has brought it up a few times, but what would you guys think about making police departments follow all the gun regulations we have to deal with?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Instead, let's do away withall gun regulations.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    p2a1x7 wrote:
    My brother has brought it up a few times, but what would you guys think about making police departments follow all the gun regulations we have to deal with?
    That would be an excellent way to illustratethe point.I hesitate to take the "let's restrict all out rights" strategy instead ofthe "let's increase all our rights" strategy as you might get what you ask for.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I would still want background checks for gun purchases or carry permits also be 21.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    I would still want background checks for gun purchases or carry permits also be 21.
    I'll have to disagree since it doesn't really stop criminals from getting guns and people are supposed to be adults at 18.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    I would still want background checks for gun purchases or carry permits also be 21.
    So, you think that background checks for gun purchases actually prevent BG from getting guns?

    So, you think that BG without CPL actually don't carry guns?

    So, you think that gang bangers who are under 21 don't carry guns?

    How about "Gun Free Zones"; I'm guessing that you think those are effective, also.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Trying to restrictthe sale to criminals doesn't interfere with a law abiding citizen's RTBA IMO.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    "Trying" is the operative word.

  9. #9
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    We have had that argument before.We can't have a system where just anyone can buy a gun.Criminals get guns ,I know that.I was in Bens one time and these punk gangbanger looking guys were in looking at weapons holding them sideways etc.One said he wanted one and as soon as the counter guy mentioned background check they couldn't get out fast enough.I makes it more difficult.We can't support a system were its just a freeforall with no checks .There are those thatask me about my gun I just say I have a license because I don't want them to know about the legality of OC.Background checks have never hindered me in buying a firearm.As I said I am aware criminals don't follow the law but why make it easier.

    I carried the M-60 machine gun in Vietnam for a time,I was 18 ,carried the grenade launcher ,fired 90mm recoiless rifles,was trained inand usedexplosives .No way when I got back at 19 was I muture enough after all that to carry a fire arm.It took a couple of years to get grounded.Some that insist on 18 are often little guys that have never been anywhere and are trying to give themselves the apprearence of being a badass.Yet alot I meet are to cowardly to join the military.Political reasons don't fly. So they want a gun to give them an apprearence of being all grown up.Just the lame excuses of a wannabe. There are many in my age group as well thet are irresponsible and I question their ability and personality as well.Some think a firearm is used if someone insults your wife or leans on your car.Really stupid......

  10. #10
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Gun control has never once helped anyone who was not a criminal. Period. Do away with all of it. How about we let parents be responsible, and make them responsible for their children? If the parent wants to let their child have access to and even carry a firearm before they are 18, it's up to them. In my mind, once you reach 18, you are an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that. If you can die for your country, you can carry a gun for self defense, and you can drink a beer too. I've known a lot of 18 year olds that were wise beyond their years, and too many people in their 40s and 50s that acted like spoiled little children that I wouldn't trust with a flathead screwdriver. Age has very little to do with it. And gun control is never the answer.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Ajetpilot wrote:
    "Trying" is the operative word.
    Murder laws don't stop allsmurder. Rape laws don't stop all rapes. Laws are society's way to put her citizen's on notice that this is the conduct that we want you to adhere to while you live with us. Society has an interest in restricting the sale of firearms to criminals IMO.Yes/No?



  12. #12
    Regular Member knight_308's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Renton, ,
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    If a criminal is not in prison (ie. has paid their debt to society) they should be fully restored with all rights, etc. This, however, presupposes that we had punishments that fit the crime: Rapid death penalty for murder, rape, intentionally causing serious harm to another, etc, very long prison terms for any kind of significant criminal enterprise, and so on. Also, this assumes that things are loosened up sufficiently that everyone who wants to be armed, can be armed.


  13. #13
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    Ajetpilot wrote:
    "Trying" is the operative word.
    Murder laws don't stop alls┬*murder.┬* Rape laws don't stop all rapes.┬* Laws are society's way to put her citizen's on notice that this is the conduct that we want you to adhere to while you live with us.┬* Society has an interest in restricting the sale of firearms to criminals IMO.┬*Yes/No?

    ┬*
    Ignoring the 2nd amendment for a moment (which should be a firm rebuttal in and of itself), you might want to look up:

    Malum In Se
    Malum Prohibitum

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

    I question your comparison of the prior restraint of a constitutionally protected right with a prohibition of murder or rape.

  14. #14
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    DEROS72 wrote:┬*
    No way when I got back at 19 was I muture enough after all that to carry a fire arm.It took a couple of years to get grounded┬* There are many in my age group as well thet are irresponsible and I question their ability and personality as well.
    So, what's the difference between the two, then?┬* Just because you were not mature at 19 to carry a firearm does not mean that we should restrict the rights of those that are.┬* Just because some in our age group are not mature enough to carry a firearm does not mean the we should restrict the rights of those that are.┬* What's the difference?
    What I find interesting about your position DEROS is that it very much reminds me of the paragraphs concerning projection, found in this article on hoplophobes:

    http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragi...elfdefense.htm

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    diesel556 wrote
    Ignoring the 2nd amendment for a moment (which should be a firm rebuttal in and of itself), you might want to look up:

    Malum In Se
    Malum Prohibitum

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

    I question your comparison of the prior restraint of a constitutionally protected right with a prohibition of murder or rape.
    Exactly. Should people have to prove that they can speak responsibly in order to exercise the First Amendment regarding speech? Should they demonstrate a thorough grounding in religious philosophy to exercise Freedom of Religion? Why is it that the only part of the Bill of Rights where it is considered acceptable to have over 20,000 laws and regulations governing our free exercise thereof is firearms?

    Seems to me that by restricting a criminals right to a firearm, you are actually restricting "potential" crimes, not crimes actually committed.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post


    I question your comparison of the prior restraint of a constitutionally protected right with a prohibition of murder or rape.

    Thanks for the link. I read it and understand it. As to your point, have laws restricting certain felons from firearms possession been found unconstitutional? If they have in fact been found constitutional, then isn't it true that a law abiding citizen's RTBA has not been infringed?


    edit:

    I found this reference where one state is questioning the felon prohibition of weapons.



    http://www.ncicl.org/article/150

  17. #17
    Regular Member Chris.R.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Walla Walla, Washington, USA
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    I would still want background checks for gun purchases or carry permits also be 21.
    I must disagree with you on the part about being 21 DEROS, it is my feeling that if youare old enough tovolunterely fight and die for your country, then you are old enough to do anything else that is legal. It is my opinion that by raising the age for everything you do we are not dodging a rising level of immaturaty, we are CREATING it. We just keep making everyone feel like children longer and longer, so they ACT like children longer. I say give the 12 year old some responsibility! He will shape up much quicker than the pampered 17 year old whose parents treat him like glass.

    CRA

    ôThe most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.ö -- Ronald Reagan

  18. #18
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    ┬*
    I question your comparison of the prior restraint of a constitutionally protected right with a prohibition of murder or rape.

    Thanks for the link.┬* I read it and understand it.┬* As to your point, have laws restricting certain felons from┬* firearms possession been found unconstitutional?┬* If they have in fact been found constitutional, then isn't it true that a law abiding citizen's RTBA has not been infringed?


    edit:

    I found this reference where one state is questioning the felon prohibition of weapons.┬*

    ┬*

    http://www.ncicl.org/article/150
    Thanks for the link! I was looking for something similar, but I'll just give this a gander.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Post imported post


    My brother has brought it up a few times, but what would you guys think about making police departments follow all the gun regulations we have to deal with?

    This is an interesting prospect, how would you propose compliance with the law regarding lawful carry while it appears there is a large disparity in the level of knowledge between departments? In short who would police the police?
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Aryk45XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    CSI. OK, now to get real.
    I think this is agreat idea. BTW, in my very small town near the ranch, I was often seen with a .22 revolver at my hip as young as age 13. You can bet I have the most respect for firearms now. I joined the military and trained with firearms, but could not legally own one in my home for protection hundreds of miles from relatives and friends. Even when I got married, I was too young to protect my family legally. How is any of this fair? If I had a firearm during these years, I probably would have made some better choices on account of appreciating my constitutional right on my hip.
    I would also like to have "officer immunity" for getting in and out of my truck while I OC. I'm always scared of people freaking out while I load and unload it. This seems like a huge hazard I would rather avoid. Seems more logical to never have to touch it and just leave it loaded and secured by my side.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Chris.R.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Walla Walla, Washington, USA
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    Aryk45XD wrote:
    CSI. OK, now to get real.
    I think this is agreat idea. BTW, in my very small town near the ranch, I was often seen with a .22 revolver at my hip as young as age 13. You can bet I have the most respect for firearms now. I joined the military and trained with firearms, but could not legally own one in my home for protection hundreds of miles from relatives and friends. Even when I got married, I was too young to protect my family legally. How is any of this fair? If I had a firearm during these years, I probably would have made some better choices on account of appreciating my constitutional right on my hip.
    I would also like to have "officer immunity" for getting in and out of my truck while I OC. I'm always scared of people freaking out while I load and unload it. This seems like a huge hazard I would rather avoid. Seems more logical to never have to touch it and just leave it loaded and secured by my side.
    Just get your CPL, you don't have to CC, but then the vehicle problem is eliminated. Plus you no longer have to wait 3 days to purchase a firearm. That is what I did, had no issues (except that they mistyped the date on it as that days date for expiration instead of 5 years from then, lol, got that fixed). Plus if you ever decide you want to cover up for some reason, then you can.

    CRA
    ôThe most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.ö -- Ronald Reagan

  22. #22
    Regular Member Aryk45XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    Yes, I've been meaning to get down to the King Co office to register, but don't have the time. There's no way I can get off work. (sometimes don't even get lunch.) I've been putting it off for months. At first I did not want to register and have my name in the Criminal Database, but I think I'm over that now. For those who do not have, or see no reason to get the CPL, and are law abiding to the "T" do unholster their weapon and work the slide every time they get in or out of a vehicle. It has got to the point where I usually leave it in the holster with the slide locked back. Then I can slide the mags in and out at my will. This has also stopped the, "Is that real?" :shock:questions. LOL I'm just happy to finally be in a state that allows open carry. The more exposure we get, the more it's accepted. IMHO.
    BTW, I love the "Oh, that's why... You're from Texas!" statement when I start talking to people about it. Seems to put a damper on the notion that everyone there rides a horse and has a gun on their hip. It's amazing how educated people become over this little piece of Metal (and plastic)

  23. #23
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    Ajetpilot wrote:
    "Trying" is the operative word.
    Murder laws don't stop allsmurder. Rape laws don't stop all rapes. Laws are society's way to put her citizen's on notice that this is the conduct that we want you to adhere to while you live with us. Society has an interest in restricting the sale of firearms to criminals IMO.Yes/No?

    Agree on all points including society's right to restrict sales to criminals. If society didn't I wonder how many MORE criminals would be armed.

    Where "society" fails in the attempt is the willingness of Prosecutors and Judges to take the easy way out when presented the opportunity. Prosecutors, in order to clear the cases as quick as possible are all to willing to plea bargain cases down to lesser charges, often in cases involving unlawful use or possession of guns. Judges also take the easy way in sentencing. Rather than go outside the normal range for sentencing, sentences are just handed down according to the menu. I would like to see a Prosecutor and Judge with serious "gonads", who would prosecute to the max and give maximum sentences, even going beyondthe menuto those who have proved their lack of ability to function in society as law abiding citizens.

    How many criminals today have recieved the so called mandatory add on sentence for using a gun in their crime? How many are even charged with this "enhancement" and not plead down to some minor charge?

    I think we'd all feel better here if Criminals received more attention and punishment than is currently apparent.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Posting Permissions

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