First Confrontation with LEO while OCing

[Pilot]

No, it's not. Not even close. You are spreading manure.

Im not going to argue it with you. You are wrong.

When it gets to OKC your NDR record is pulled and you are run through a federal system. That is how it works.

 

[Joe Williams]

Im not going to argue it with you. You are wrong.

When it gets to OKC your NDR record is pulled and you are run through a federal system. That is how it works.

And the check is worthless, depending only on the honesty of the person providing the information, with ZERO verification that it is correct.

We've already discussed this, you either know crap about background checks, or are being deliberately dishonest.

 

[Pilot]

And the check is worthless, depending only on the honesty of the person providing the information, with ZERO verification that it is correct.

We've already discussed this, you either know crap about background checks, or are being deliberately dishonest.

It may be worthless to you, but it is a check. And yes, it does depend on honesty. The good thing is that now you have to have a US passport to train. You wont be faking that! Its sad that 9/11 had to happen for them to require proof of citizenship, but whats done is done.

I think they are less concerned about someone crashing a small aircraft into something than they are about an airline pilot doing it with an airliner at this point. The checks for airline pilots are long and take forever.

You know, you can have a discussion without wise comments involved. You may even learn something that way.

 

[JJGatesE30]

I'd say you do care, enough to revert to calling those who OC "stupid looking" and saying we have small penises. I don't get it. Why are you so threatened by it?

The penis or the gun?

Seriously though, I'm not personally threatened by it, but plenty of people will be. I guess I'm just picturing a guy going into mcdonalds or walmart wearing a gun on his side, it's going to make people uncomfortable and yes, I think it looks stupid. So its more comfortable I suppose, but to me, that guy just wants attention (and I imagine it can get you the wrong kind of attention as well).

 

[dross]

The background check for a weekend pilot is much like the check for a handgun license. The background a professional pilot goes through is much more thorough.

Flying an airplane is not a right, it's a privilege. On the practical side, it requires such a high level of cooperation that it requires specific knowledge and training in order to safely operate with other members of society.

Carrying arms IS a right, not a privilege. A handgun is relatively simple device, and requires very little knowledge in order to safely operate it around other members of society. In fact, I can teach you enough in less than thirty seconds that you'll never harm anyone with it.

I am I for constitutional rights. What I am NOT ok with is someone who is of questionable moral character or mental stability being allowed to hurt someone else based on his constitutional rights. There are some people who should never be allowed to touch a gun.

Agreed. Now, should the assumption of society be that everyone is NOT qualified until it is proven that they are, or that everyone IS qualified until it is proven that they are not? Since it's a right, we must err on the side of the latter.

Freedom can be scary.

So yes, there are some people who should NOT have the right to bear arms. Someone who is mentally ill should not be allowed to own a weapon and someone convicted of violent crimes should not be allowed to own a weapon. Just because you have a right does not mean at some point it should not be taken from you if you abuse it.

Isn't that the current state of the law already? The question is whether you're going to assume I'm mentally ill or violent until I prove otherwise. That's not freedom.

Here's a newsflash for you: Someone who is mentally unstable and wants a gun, or someone who is a violent criminal who wants a gun will not be stopped by a law that says they can't have one.

 

[Pilot]

Flying an airplane is not a right, it's a privilege. On the practical side, it requires such a high level of cooperation that it requires specific knowledge and training in order to safely operate with other members of society.

Carrying arms IS a right, not a privilege. A handgun is relatively simple device, and requires very little knowledge in order to safely operate it around other members of society. In fact, I can teach you enough in less than thirty seconds that you'll never harm anyone with it.

Yes, it is a right. But again, some should not have that right. But we were not discussing rights and privileges.

Agreed. Now, should the assumption of society be that everyone is NOT qualified until it is proven that they are, or that everyone IS qualified until it is proven that they are not? Since it's a right, we must err on the side of the latter.

Society does not say everyone is not qualified. Where did this even come from? Im saying that some people slip through the cracks are are allowed to carry a gun that should not be allowed.

Isn't that the current state of the law already? The question is whether you're going to assume I'm mentally ill or violent until I prove otherwise. That's not freedom.

Here's a newsflash for you: Someone who is mentally unstable and wants a gun, or someone who is a violent criminal who wants a gun will not be stopped by a law that says they can't have one.

Yes, it is the law. But people do slip through the cracks. Yes, if someone wants a gun they will get one no matter what. But why make it easier than it has to be for them?

And just because certain people have not been arrested or declared mentally unstable does not mean they aren't. There are plenty of people out there that are violent and/or mentally ill and have not done something to get themselves in trouble, or at least haven't been caught yet.

My question to you is what is your point with any of what you just said?

 

[dross]

Yes, it is a right. But again, some should not have that right. But we were not discussing rights and privileges.



Society does not say everyone is not qualified. Where did this even come from? Im saying that some people slip through the cracks are are allowed to carry a gun that should not be allowed.




Yes, it is the law. But people do slip through the cracks. Yes, if someone wants a gun they will get one no matter what. But why make it easier than it has to be for them?

And just because certain people have not been arrested or declared mentally unstable does not mean they aren't. There are plenty of people out there that are violent and/or mentally ill and have not done something to get themselves in trouble, or at least haven't been caught yet.

My question to you is what is your point with any of what you just said?

Perhaps I missed your point. I thought you were making the argument that background checks for permission to carry a handgun outside your home should be substantially more thorough? Did I misunderstand? If that was your point, I think my arguments are fairly obvious.

I'm saying that I don't think there should be a background check at all. By requiring a background check, you are saying, "Before you may legally exercise your right, the government must first look into your private life and determine if you are qualified to exercise that right." That's starting out with the assumption that no one is qualified until they prove they are.

Where is our disconnect?

 

[Pilot]

Perhaps I missed your point. I thought you were making the argument that background checks for permission to carry a handgun outside your home should be substantially more thorough? Did I misunderstand? If that was your point, I think my arguments are fairly obvious.

I'm saying that I don't think there should be a background check at all. By requiring a background check, you are saying, "Before you may legally exercise your right, the government must first look into your private life and determine if you are qualified to exercise that right." That's starting out with the assumption that no one is qualified until they prove they are.

Where is our disconnect?

Then you understand me perfectly. You understand exactly what I am saying. If your private life or past has crime, substance abuse, mental issues, and violence in it, then no, you should not be allowed to own, or even touch, a firearm. You should have that right taken from you for the safety of everyone else. And when I say YOU, I am speak generally, not about you specifically. Why should the rest of us be in potential danger because of someone who can't keep themselves together?

When you live a lifestyle full of poor choices, you lose certain rights. Just ask the many people in prison all over the US.

We live in a society of civility and order, or at least that is what it is supposed to be. This is not the wild wild west.

 

[dross]

Then you understand me perfectly. You understand exactly what I am saying. If your private life or past has crime, substance abuse, mental issues, and violence in it, then no, you should not be allowed to own, or even touch, a firearm. You should have that right taken from you for the safety of everyone else. And when I say YOU, I am speak generally, not about you specifically. Why should the rest of us be in potential danger because of someone who can't keep themselves together?

When you live a lifestyle full of poor choices, you lose certain rights. Just ask the many people in prison all over the US.

We live in a society of civility and order, or at least that is what it is supposed to be. This is not the wild wild west.

So, assuming we agree that mental illness and prior violent crime should preclude ownership of guns, which it already does, our argument is in the assumptions made by the government.

I believe that I shouldn't have to apply for permission to exercise a right. If I must apply for permission, it's not a right anymore, or to be more precise, it is a right abridged.

Your assumption seems to be that before I can exercise my right I must first be approved by the government.

This part of the disagreement is huge, and I submit that your position supports tyranny.

 

[IndyMonkey]

So they shouldn't have a gun for the perceived danger that the person might be.

Lol, nice

 

[Pilot]

So, assuming we agree that mental illness and prior violent crime should preclude ownership of guns, which it already does, our argument is in the assumptions made by the government.

I believe that I shouldn't have to apply for permission to exercise a right. If I must apply for permission, it's not a right anymore, or to be more precise, it is a right abridged.

Your assumption seems to be that before I can exercise my right I must first be approved by the government.

This part of the disagreement is huge, and I submit that your position supports tyranny.

When rights get abused, they are taken. Im sure the founding fathers did not view the future to be full of robbery, rape, and murder. They did not envision that for America. But it is how it turned out in some ways.

When people take rights for granted and use those rights for destructive purposed those rights are taken. There is a track record of it happening.

 

[Pilot]

So they shouldn't have a gun for the perceived danger that the person might be.

Lol, nice

If the perception is supported by facts and evidence, then yes.

 

[dross]

When rights get abused, they are taken. Im sure the founding fathers did not view the future to be full of robbery, rape, and murder. They did not envision that for America. But it is how it turned out in some ways.

When people take rights for granted and use those rights for destructive purposed those rights are taken. There is a track record of it happening.

Taken from individuals AFTER due process, not taken from the people at large because of what some others might do.

You don't think they had robbery, rape, and murder? Even if they were as naive as you suggest, you would still have to amend the Constitution to change it.

So, because someone somewhere might abuse their freedom, that's justification for taking other people's rights who have not abused THEIR freedom?

That's the rallying cry for tyrants and dictators through the ages who would take our rights.

 

[Pilot]

Taken from individuals AFTER due process, not taken from the people at large because of what some others might do.

You don't think they had robbery, rape, and murder? Even if they were as naive as you suggest, you would still have to amend the Constitution to change it.

So, because someone somewhere might abuse their freedom, that's justification for taking other people's rights who have not abused THEIR freedom?

That's the rallying cry for tyrants and dictators through the ages who would take our rights.

No, and the constitution will never be amended to fix anything. Do you think Obama cares about rights? No way!

Life is too short to have people who are unstable having easy access to weapons.

 

[sj kahr k40]

No, and the constitution will never be amended to fix anything. Do you think Obama cares about rights? No way!

Life is too short to have people who are unstable having easy access to weapons.

I can agree with you on both those points.

 

[dross]

No, and the constitution will never be amended to fix anything. Do you think Obama cares about rights? No way!

Life is too short to have people who are unstable having easy access to weapons.

You're ignoring most of my points. What does Obama caring about rights have to do with anything?

You're talking about taking rights from people who haven't done anything wrong because other people have done wrong. That's as strong an anti-freeom position as there is.

 

[ATM]

Life is too short to have people who are unstable having easy access to weapons.

Life is too short to trade in liberty for the notion of security.

 

[Pilot]

You're ignoring most of my points. What does Obama caring about rights have to do with anything?

You're talking about taking rights from people who haven't done anything wrong because other people have done wrong. That's as strong an anti-freeom position as there is.

You are right. But do you believe in taking chances on the safety of your family? My neighbor for instance. He is a lawyer and a complete hot head. He blows up for no reason on his wife. He is a prime example of someone who should never be allowed to own a gun. He makes comments such as "That guy deserves to be shot." Or even better "I would shoot him myself" Those comments are serious. If I found out he had applied for a handgun license, I would call the state police myself and tell them to deny it. I would go as far as to get a lawyer involved. A hotheaded person and a gun dont mix.

Unfortunately, sometimes we all pay the price for the actions of a few. Gun laws are a small example of that.

 

[ATM]

If I found out he had applied for a handgun license, I would call the state police myself and tell them to deny it. I would go as far as to get a lawyer involved.

Good luck with that.

You'd probably feel more secure in a "may issue" state.

 

[Pilot]

Good luck with that.

You'd probably feel more secure in a "may issue" state.

My brother in law did it with a friend of his that had a drinking problem. He would make threats and drink and drink. He called the state police and they came and talked to him. He got a denial letter in the mail. They spoke to his coworkers as well. They decided he should not have one.

The guy would get drunk and make threats against peoples lives and his own. No reason to arm a guy like that, even if the constitution says he has the right.