Debate Over 'Assault Weapons'

[ntrngr]

Oh yeah thats exactly who I want to show when shots are fired "polite" cops. What a douche bag.

I really hat to revive this thread, however, some things need to be said.

I'm not talking about, "Please..." and "Thank you" here. Maybe I should refit "polite" with "constitutionally respectful".

Obviously none of you that have called me an idiot or a douche bag have a clue what happened in PA. For sure, the guy was a nut. According to the reports there were NO shots fired before the police got there. Frankly, "POLICE! FREEZE!" just doesn't do over well when the guy is paranoid about you taking his guns (violating his rights) and has access to an assault rifle. Add to that his (alleged) mental stability problems and you have a brew for a bad situation (you know, like 4 cops dying?). You can tell from the way things go down, often, many officers look upon the citizens as lower forms of life. That could be because they most often deal with the dregs of society. They answer to us. They are there to protect OUR rights. They do not. They are caught in the middle enforcing the will of the state part time and protecting us part time.

Actually, I think this guy baited them. They crossed him. He killed them. Had they been more polite, as in "constitutionally respectful", maybe they would still be alive. In other words if they had been more like a citizen (in the nutcase's mind) trying to keep the peace instead of showing up bristling with authority trying to get that nutty gun owner to give up his guns, maybe things would have not escalated to that point. It is pure speculation. I'm just speculating again but I'd bet this guy had been reading a bunch of conspiracy web sites. (Info Wars? Spend a couple hours on that web site and you'll start worrying about your lawn violating your privacy rights.)

I am not saying that the guy was right and the cops were wrong, I'm saying the cops often have a less than constitutional mindset as they enforce their department's policy. (Notice I didn't say "the law" since they don't and never have. They enforce department policy. Sometimes it looks just like the law, but it is not. They will arrest who they want, when they want, rights and laws be damned. Just ask the Wisconsin sheriff about the "law", open carry and his department policy.

If you cannot intelligibly argue your point, please don't call me an idiot or a douche bag. Believe me, I'm the douche bag you'll want around when your rights are being violated. Constitutionally respectful law enforcement personnel have no fears of assault weapons. Heavy handed governments do.

The police just don't use good tactics sometimes. I mean, unless this PA (Thats "Pennsylvania" not Paranoid *******) guy had threatened to shoot someone (...and I don't think he had, please correct me if I'm wrong) they could have just cleared out and nabbed him later. In fact, as far as I know, until the cops showed up he didn't even have his gun out. It was a domestic dispute call not a shots fired call.

In some ways this has a whif of the FBI in Waco incident. They could have nabbed that guy any day of the week. But, no, they had to do it their way. People died. FBI looked heavy handed. (...and frankly amateurish.) They weren't polite either. Oh, sorry, Consitutionally Respectful. Anytime law enforcement forgets they answer to the citizenry, people get hurt. They remind me of big game hunters with no patience. The elephant will stomp your butt if you don't behave properly, it doesn't matter how big your gun is. If you do behave properly, you can take him down without breaking a sweat with a 22 rimfire. (That may be a slight exaggeration. )

Assault rifles are effective. Banning them simply makes oppression easier and the will of the state less expensive to enforce.

Am I still a douche bag? ...an idiot? ...a pile of ****?

Don't care what you call me. Just respect my Constitutional Rights and I'll still like you.

 

[Indy317]

Obviously none of you that have called me an idiot or a douche bag have a clue what happened in PA. For sure, the guy was a nut. According to the reports there were NO shots fired before the police got there. Frankly, "POLICE! FREEZE!" just doesn't do over well when the guy is paranoid about you taking his guns (violating his rights) and has access to an assault rifle. Add to that his (alleged) mental stability problems and you have a brew for a bad situation (you know, like 4 cops dying?). You can tell from the way things go down, often, many officers look upon the citizens as lower forms of life. That could be because they most often deal with the dregs of society. They answer to us. They are there to protect OUR rights. They do not. They are caught in the middle enforcing the will of the state part time and protecting us part time.

Actually, I think this guy baited them. They crossed him. He killed them. Had they been more polite, as in "constitutionally respectful", maybe they would still be alive. In other words if they had been more like a citizen (in the nutcase's mind) trying to keep the peace instead of showing up bristling with authority trying to get that nutty gun owner to give up his guns, maybe things would have not escalated to that point.

The problem is that your not focusing on the other person in this incident..the guys mom. You want to claim that since the cops were more "agents" in this guys mind, that is why he killed them. Well, to his mom, these cops were friends/helpers, not agents.

I understand your issue about being agents of the state vs. servants to the public. The problems are so complex, I really don't know where to begin. For starters, police are pro-active in some areas. Not each cop is very pro-active, but some are. When property taxes went sky high, groups of people protested all over the state. I have yet to see any serious, organized protests over the War on Drugs. I have yet to see any serious, organized protests over DUI checkpoints. Instead of asking cops why they are agents of the state, ask your neighbors why they don't care about DUI saturation patrols, DUI checkpoints, drug laws, drug interdiction patrols, etc.. Ask them why they haven't felt the need to protest these activities, yet they are likely to scream for property tax caps. We get the government we allow. Trust me, if people started protesting pro-active police work, things would change. The powers that be, and a good number of cops, would love for police to only handle true police emergencies.

The next question is, how far back do we roll back police response? Should cops be light firefighters and stay on station, waiting for calls for service? Should we use technology vs. people in trying to fight things like red light running (cameras), speeding (cameras, devices on vehicles), and DUI (all vehicles have to have a breath test device before they will work)? What kind of calls should officers not go on? Police have gotten more involved because your neighbors, and my neighbors, have all _demanded_ it. They call the police for ever little stupid thing. This has caused a need for massive amounts of armed social workers, because too many people are idiots who act like children. We can't keep people in jail for a true punishment because we decide we would rather blow a billion dollars on a football stadium.

If you honestly think that a lot of officers are servants to the state more than the people, you haven't been paying attention. Look at LA, the cops left when things started to get hot. Look at New Orleans, again, the cops left their masters. This proves that most cops are human, just like you and me. If we don't want them doing certain things, then we need to change the laws so they can't.

 

[spartan933]

Okay, Criminals do get guns from straw purchasers. But, the overwhelming majority of people who purchase guns are not straw purchasers. You cannot punish the many for the misdeeds of a few.

I do think that many gun owners are afraid of Obama and what he will do with the 2nd Amendment. But, I don't think he will outlaw guns, nor ammunition. The 2nd Amendment will stay where it is. I believe that even citizens that don't own guns would be against removal of the 2nd Amendment. It's an American thing. We are proud of our Constitution and the fact that it is considered a Living Constitution. In other words, it was written so well 200 years ago that it can effectively be applied to modern issues and times. I think for that reason, the 2nd Amendment will stay where it is.

I think the big issue is the AWB. I think the reason people are so against Assault Weapons is that even though they are semi-auto and not full-auto, they LOOK just like the ones that the military uses. That is what scares people.

But, whatever they look like, people need to educate themselves about firearms, it's only fair. Just like we gun owners and advocates educate ourselves on what the anti-gun people say, they should do likewise. It's like "liberals" listening to "conservatives" (I hate labels) like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, they may not agree, but it is important to educate yourself about others views and then form an opinion based on that and outside self-education.

Off topic:

I love coffee. If terrorists were smart, they would somehow destroy our coffee supply. That would mess this country up so fast we wouldn't be able to recover.

 

[ntrngr]

The problem is that your not focusing on the other person in this incident..the guys mom. You want to claim that since the cops were more "agents" in this guys mind, that is why he killed them. Well, to his mom, these cops were friends/helpers, not agents.

I understand your issue about being agents of the state vs. servants to the public. The problems are so complex, I really don't know where to begin. For starters, police are pro-active in some areas. Not each cop is very pro-active, but some are. When property taxes went sky high, groups of people protested all over the state. I have yet to see any serious, organized protests over the War on Drugs. I have yet to see any serious, organized protests over DUI checkpoints. Instead of asking cops why they are agents of the state, ask your neighbors why they don't care about DUI saturation patrols, DUI checkpoints, drug laws, drug interdiction patrols, etc.. Ask them why they haven't felt the need to protest these activities, yet they are likely to scream for property tax caps. We get the government we allow. Trust me, if people started protesting pro-active police work, things would change. The powers that be, and a good number of cops, would love for police to only handle true police emergencies.

The next question is, how far back do we roll back police response? Should cops be light firefighters and stay on station, waiting for calls for service? Should we use technology vs. people in trying to fight things like red light running (cameras), speeding (cameras, devices on vehicles), and DUI (all vehicles have to have a breath test device before they will work)? What kind of calls should officers not go on? Police have gotten more involved because your neighbors, and my neighbors, have all _demanded_ it. They call the police for ever little stupid thing. This has caused a need for massive amounts of armed social workers, because too many people are idiots who act like children. We can't keep people in jail for a true punishment because we decide we would rather blow a billion dollars on a football stadium.

If you honestly think that a lot of officers are servants to the state more than the people, you haven't been paying attention. Look at LA, the cops left when things started to get hot. Look at New Orleans, again, the cops left their masters. This proves that most cops are human, just like you and me. If we don't want them doing certain things, then we need to change the laws so they can't.

You know, I just hate it when people force me to think outside of *MY* own box. It was my box and now you've forced me out. No, really, thank you.

You bring up many good points on which I will ponder. As I look back over my text I may have conveyed too strong of an opinion that LEOs tend to be agents of the the state. At times they are more than others. In different places, they are more than in other places. I should soften that tone. I have the opinion that the "agent of the stateness" (or simply "agentness") is directly proportional to the population density. And, you are quite right, they do these things with public approval.

I do, however, still stand by the reasoning for owning assault weapons. And, by the way, they can ban them all they want, but until they repeal the second amendment, the law is void for vagueness. As is just about every other firearm law. Unless you're rich and being in court is your hobby, it will never be challenged. Of course they'll jail you and bury you with lawsuits so what good is the law? They just pass 10 conflicting laws and then pick which one they want to prosecute you with. Salad bowl justice, its whats for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Look how they interpret the commerce clause and the 1st amendment. Extrapolating each out so thin with arguments so weak my scrawny cousin could beat them in arm wrestling (I mean my cousin is REALLY scrawny, too!). Then, they turn around and do just the opposite with the 2A. There is no justice. Its mostly fake.

Now Sarge won't talk to me because I completely hijacked his thread. Sorry Sarge. I'll have to pay him with a pound of powder or a 100 rounds of ammo or something to repair that fence.

Thanks for the discussion!