• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Limiting Police to firearms

p2a1x7

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
99
Location
Pullman, Washington, USA
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?
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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.
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
imported post

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

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
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.
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

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

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
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......
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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.
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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?
 

knight_308

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
173
Location
Renton, ,
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.
 

diesel556

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
714
Location
Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
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.
 

diesel556

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
714
Location
Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
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/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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
 

Chris.R.Anderson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
71
Location
Walla Walla, Washington, USA
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
 

diesel556

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
714
Location
Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
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.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
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?
 

Aryk45XD

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
513
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top