jgoose71

California, the largest state and New York, the largest city? Gee I don't know Mr Goose, why do those places have the largest police forces? So the unholy alliance between liberal politicians and public sector unions in these towns where politicians vote pay raises and more equipment and more rights to them in exchange for campaign donations from collected taxes doesn't exist? Liberal Politicians haven't fought tooth and nail to keep public sector workers from opting out of unions? Whew!!!!! Thanks for clearing that up, I thought I was going crazy.... Then there isn't a single law and order Republican on this forum. Sir, you wound me. What am I? Chopped liver? And what is wrong with having your police force answerable to the people instead of politicians? "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Read the last half of my post above.... Edited to also read: See also any CCW law in the us (Law enforcement exemptions) also what police are allowed to use to protect themselves as compared to the general public. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

So all the 'law and order' republicans should be voting democrat then? Follow the bouncing ball dude.... Q: What is the job of a Union? Incase you don't know, read the answer below: A: To protect the worker (their client) and to assure the best working conditions possible for him. Now answer the following questions on your own to test your deductive reasoning: Q: What obligation does the police union have to everyday people? Q: So how does this work out when the job being protected is to oppress the people? Q: Who do unions give the most money too and why? Q: Do you think it's an accident that the largest police forces belong to places like California, Chicago, and New York? And the Coupe de Grace--- Q: Who do the Chiefs of Police for these large forces answer to? (Hint: not the people) And as I said before, these are the people you want to cut out special constitutional rights (exceptions) for. And law and order republicans generally like to have the same rights as the police and have the police answerable to the people (as in the case of elected county sherifs). It's a lot easier to work with someone (in this case the the public working with the police) when you can look them in the eye and NOT being looked down upon from their lofty position to which they can shit all over you.... just saying'..... The reason I really posted this thread is because I had just read about the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. How is it that after 10 years of service an Officer gets a special badge that allows him to carry in any of the 50 states? When he retires, he is no longer an officer and no longer has arrest authority. More over how is it that he gets rights above retired military? Some of which who have spent 20 years maintaining firearms qualifications, have trained relentlessly in threat assessment, escalation of force, and rules of engagement, retired honorably, have been vetted by the VA as not having TBI or PTSD or any other mental problem, and have wrote a check to the US to be cashed as needed for up to and including their life in it's defense? How are these people any less deserving? How are their constitutional rights tiered under that of a police officer? And that is not the only example out there. Any exemption from a law for public officials I believe is unconstitutional. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

In what way are they being treated differently? And what is it you want Mexico to do? Do you want them to keep him in a Mexican prison like Tahmooressi or do you want them to send him back immediately to face US justice? It seems like whichever one they do you're determined to be angry that they didn't do the other. Did a Mexican piss in your cornflakes this morning or what? If he was in a Mexican Jail, I wouldn't be griping as much..... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

You're trying to take aim at a hypocrisy that doesn't exist. The people arguing for stricter gun laws are usually the same people arguing against the militarization and over-arming of the police. Not really. It's the unholy alliance between the police unions and the Democrats that want to give bazooka's and MWRAPS to the Police... For their safety. Which once again begs the question, why is it required for their safety and not ours? Civilians are the first one on the scene and often have to fend for them selves until the police arrive.... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Ya, you got me there. Gotta love those corrupt systems. Still kind of upsets me though when you compare Tahmooressi's treatment to this douchebag.... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

I forgot to add: And yes, I do think that Law Enforcement Exemptions are unconstitutional. They create a 2 tiered system elevating a constitutionally protected right of one class (government officials) over another class (everyone else). Once again, just my $.02 "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Hi Wendy, So what about the firearm that was found with him? "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

By all means, consider away. Given the kids history and how Mexico has "deported" other Americans this just really caught me by surprise, that's all. It reeks of just wanting to slap America around, like every other country has done since Obama has been president. That he was found with a firearm and that they are still considering asylum is what really boggles my mind. Anyone remember Andrew Tahmooressi? "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Happy New Year! Let's start off with a question that has been nagging at me. Do you think that Firearms exemptions for law enforcement written into just about every gun law ever written are constitutional? Some things to consider: 1. The firearm that was used to kill Katharine Stienle was stolen from a police officer. 2. Secret Service agents have left there firearms in bathrooms. 3. Retired Police officers have lost their marbles and shot up movie theaters. 4. Laquan McDonald might still be alive if cops magazine sizes were restricted. Point being, cops are people too, and not immune to mistakes. Consider also that I keep hearing that the average american citizen does not need an AR-15 for self defense. A six shooter revolver or lever action 30-30 is supposed to be plenty, so a Police Officer, who is supposed to be well trained with these items should be more than plenty? They say that a person "open carrying" in the streets could cause an undue disturbance. Do you think that an armed police officer causes undue disturbances in the black community? They can still carry but must comply with all applicable conceal carry laws for your average citizen. Please keep in mind, as the saying goes, "Assault weapons are weapons of war." So why do our politicians need to be surrounded by them? Are they going to go to war with the American people or something? Do our politicians deserve more firepower that your average citizen? If so, I would seriously like to hear the "Class Warfare/ Social Justice/ Equality for all" crowd tell me why the political elite are more deserving of protection than your average everyday person. On the Second Amendment, it was founded with the idea that the government could not oppress/ enslave the people. So do you think that it's right that the government is able to outgun the general public? Especially, as you see in the media, there is the law enforcement war on blacks? What about all there hand-me-downs from the military? And on a personal level, I think that removing law enforcement exemptions (seeing that this would directly effect politicians) would finally give an honest debate to what is truly needed for personal protection. Just my $.02. Fire away (not literally....) "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Now, in a strange twist of events, Mexico is considering granting the kid asylum because the U.S. is unfairly persecuting him. Yup, Mexico is our friend...... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

As I pointed out earlier, our "Imposed Consequences" are not working out either. With my kids they would always tell me "I promise nothing bad will happen" when I would tell them no. They would argue on and then (depending on the circumstances) I would go get mom and then tell them OK. Then we would sit down, watch the tom-foolery, laugh at them, and then tell them "I bet you won't try that again....." As they got older, when I would tell them "OK, let me get mom first so we can watch" they would rethink there actions..... I hate to say this, but trying to mug an armed "victim" can have a lot of the same effect. Eventually the message will get out. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Not in my experience. There are a lot of new and uninformed and uneducated (at least w/r/t guns) people at the shows. And basic rules (like keep it pointed in a safe direction at all times) aren't enforced. People who have zero training, or people who think the rules don't apply to them will swing muzzles with no regard for where they are pointing. I had one idiot point a closed pistol right at me (a number of years ago before they required them to be zip tied open). When I objected, he replied "its not loaded." I told him I didn't give a shit, and if he didn't know any better than to not point a gun at someone, he had no business holding it. I then asked if he even knew the rules for safe gun handling and what they were. He was totally clueless. The level of inexperience is one of the reasons they require the guns to be empty, and because of accidents despite the rules, they now require them to be zip tied open. Kind of related and pretty funny: I did a shift as Range Officer this morning. The day after Christmas is usually pretty busy. Santa was generous this year. I was checking in a couple of new members, and when I started to go over the rules, one guy said something like "Rules? We have to follow rules?" I knew he was kidding, but replied with something like: "Well, if everyone was careful, competent, intelligent, careful and safe; we wouldn't need rules. But because we have stupid people who do stupid things, we have carefully thought out, clearly spelled out, thoroughly enforced rules." He laughed and agreed. OK, I'll give you that. From what I understand there are a lot of first time gun owners this year. What was it? 2 Million background checks in November alone? "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

The term is getting a little warmer. Why not just "Violence Control?" Guns have nothing to do with it. I've had many guns in my day and none of them were ever violent. Also would add, do you think that by taking the gun out of the bad guys hands that he would all of the sudden stop being violent? Yes, I like "Violence Control." Well, over 70% of murders are committed with guns, so focussing on that one issue will be far easier than diluting any effort with dozens of other violence issues. You know you can't paint with a broad brush like that. The gun is just an inanimate object. If you take it away, you still have the original issue to deal with, no matter what. It's like putting a bandage on an infection. Something is still festering underneath. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Hi Wendy! To an extent, what is needed IS human nature control. The solution has been mentioned before, but we can mention it again... When violent criminals get caught doing something, they need to face the consequences of their actions. Anyone who has ever been a parent will tell you how to adjust behavior. Criminals are allowed to plea down there charges, turn states evidence, or even just recently the new thing is just to let them back out onto the streets because of their skin color. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Our justice/ prison system (yes, you have to combine them both in this case) isn't a deterrent any more. We need more deterrents. If the criminal justice system cannot deter criminal behavior, then yes, more bullets might be in order. In the grand scheme of things, for criminals the risk/ reward assessment for criminals weighs heavily in the "reward" category. I hate to say it, but that is the result of a population that just rolls over for criminal behavior while waiting for that "someone else" they have outsourced their safety to arrives because self protection just isn't their job. If you want to control "bad behavior" of any sort, you have to make the juice not worth the squeeze. How can that happen when we even have prosecutors going after people who protect them selves? Isn't self protection supposed to be a right? Or, maybe option be where we put enough cops on the street where anyone who thinks of committing a crime gets stopped? What would that society look like? I'm just of the impression that maybe, is we as a society put a little skin into the game and took on a little responsibility for the safety of our selves and our community it could really do wonders. A big "Violence is not allowed here and the residence of this community will stand up to reject it" sign if you will. Now mind you, I'm not advocating vigilantly justice. There was a time when cops used to get out of there car and new the people in the neighborhood. Sheriffs even used to have and train posses!!! In today's day and age I don't think that will fly with all the personal injury lawyers, but law enforcement could teach what is legal and what is not for self defense and show high risk communities different options for self defense (doesn't alway have to be a gun, but the second amendment is supposed to guarantee the option). Not just be a victim. Either way, make it known that the juice, most certainly will not be worth the squeeze. That's how I would implement "Violence Control" anyway.... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

The term is getting a little warmer. Why not just "Violence Control?" Guns have nothing to do with it. I've had many guns in my day and none of them were ever violent. Also would add, do you think that by taking the gun out of the bad guys hands that he would all of the sudden stop being violent? Yes, I like "Violence Control." "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

OK you got me. What is the count now? 6 out of 10's of millions? I guess we had better disarm the estimated 700,000 to 4.5 million a year that have used guns to save their life or protect their property just so that way you can say you saved 6 lives... As Normiss said earlier... "Because Maths" "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

I'm not saying that they are all stupid. Far from it. But there are a lot of them. The very low level of accidents (even if there were three) tells me that the safeguards work. At least most of the time. I would say more than most of the time. Once again, despite any stereo-typing the left might try to pull, this is probably one of the safest crowds you could probably hang around. I would be willing to bet just about everyone at one of these events knows the basic firearm handling safety rules. I would also venture to say that any shooting that might happen would be a result of complacency, and not because of malicious intent. Have you ever heard of an actual murder at a gun show? "Let's go attack an NRA convention...." said no terrorist EVER.... Edited to add: not to take away from your points above though. A refresher from time to time after a long sabbatical is never a bad idea.... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Bah Humbug...... Somebody drink some eggnog for me...... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

I want you to think carefully about what you just wrote. I'm not disagreeing. Not at all. I think that is THE issue. Of the 10 of MILLIONS of people that attend gun shows every year there was A accident. Despite the assertions that they are all stupid, I've got to say I feel safer there than i do behind a wheel. The drive there is usually the most dangerous part.... Statistically speaking of course.... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Dude, if you think those are the only choices available, it's probably best you never own a firearm and just wait for the police. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Not at all. I do believe that evidence shows that a western society with less guns is safer than a western society with an abundance of guns. I believe that one of the reasons Toronto is so much safer than US cities of similar size is because gun ownership is slightly more difficult and we do not have a culture of walking around with them. I fully agree that guns can be used for good and that crime has been prevented because of guns. I also believe that banning guns in the US now would not have favourable results for multiple decades and likely generations. I ma happy Canada's historical path regarding guns has been very different to yours. I believe it has created a much safer society. I don't think it's the lack of guns that makes Canada the place it is. I think it's all the high-grade cannabis... "Hey dude, you want to knock over a liquor store, eh?" "Maybe later dude, pass me the Cheetos.....eh?" "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

You were doing such a good job of sounding reasonable until this. You just had to get in a stupid dig. Shit like this just makes it easier for anti-gun people to dismiss you as a whacko. Like I said, some people think of themselves as the first line of defense in defending their families, others wait for a government official in these crucial moments.... I refer to the second group as "total liberal pussies...." I can't help it. It's the unrepentant non-PC sailor in me.... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Not at all. I do believe that as a society we have a responsibility to provide a minimum of care to those in society. That means ensuring people have a basic level of preventative and emergency health care. It means that affordable housing is available to those who need it. It means welfare is available to those who need it. Those who do not need it, or who can afford more are free to do so. Nobody is a pet of the government. Though improvements can always be made. I find it odd that when it comes to gun ownership, most people find it "acceptable" that innocent people die from time to time. It is the price to be paid for the right. Yet when it comes to things like welfare, healthcare, food stamps etc. one person abusing it is grounds for abolishing it. I think you and I can agree that some level of a safety net in a modern society is a reasonable thing. I think that the amount of a safety net we would disagree on. I know this has a lot to do with our philosophies on life. I strongly believe a lot more in self reliance. This carries over to the gun debate. A lot of people now a days would much rather outsource their safety to the government. If a bad guy comes, call the police, hide in the closet, and hope he doesn't find you until the police arrive. Then their are those that believe that themselves, not the police, are the first line of defense when bad things happen. They have to keep their family safe until police arrive. When you look at crimes committed with guns, the U.S. averages about 32,000 a year. When you look at crimes stopped with guns, depending on the study you look at you get numbers between 700,000 to 4.5 million a year. This is hard to verify because the numbers are taken from a sampling and not very many people report an "almost crime." However, a good number of the amount of women deter rapist with a gun is around 200,000 a year. Keep in mind, while in the U.S. there are approximately 88 guns for every 100 people right now, they also say that only about 38% of the households have guns in them. I point out this last statistic because it directly relates to why people want to ban guns. Most of America doesn't actually own a gun, so they don't see the utility of it. It's that thing that bad guys have to do bad things, ban it. Most families do own a car, they see the utility of it, so they don't complain about the carnage on the streets. That, and some also don't mind cowering in a corner while their family gets killed one by one by a lunatic while they wait for police to arrive..... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything

Geez Wendy, I never figured that you of all people would post something that would be so insensitive to the "youthfully challenged." Least you could do is give a "trigger warning" first....... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything