General Forums >> General Discussions >> Poll: America and guns in the hands who should not have them!

Rate

Poll: America and guns in the hands who should not have them!

2,483 Views
103 Replies Flag as inappropriate

Poll: Are you willing to take a stand and fix this problem !

Giu-turkey-distribution-004-801_max50

236 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

SGT405 says ...



Lets look at this in a historical perspective. The U.S. banned and dangerous drugs a century ago. They became ILLEGAL. Did they vanish from the country? Did criminals suddenly become law abiding citizens and turn theirs in and stop selling/buying them? Prohobition oultawed alcohol. Did all citizens blindly follow the law? Did alcohol cease to exist?


I feel that if our elected officials do decide to bend to the gun control minority and ban certain classes of weapons the same scenarios frrom history will replay.  "Assault Weapons" are not what civilians own. You own a semi-automatic VERSION of a military assault weapon. It jusy looks the same-hence evil! It is no different than a semi-automatic Remington 742 or 7400 or any semi-auto shotgun. One trigger pull one shot.


There are approximately 13,000 firearm related deaths per year. Including suicides. There are 32,000 motor vehicle deaths per year, 2.2million motor vehicle accidents with injuries per year. A cost of almost 1 billion dollars in medical and health care related costs due to them. No one is  touting the banning of motor vehicles or the banning of alcohol and driving, the use of cell phones while driving or banning texting while driving. On the national level. Far more citizens are injured and killed by other means than fireams.  You can attempt to legislate inanimate objects but you can never legislate human behavior with the assumtion that it will achieve the desired outcome. We are what we are. Some good, some average and borderline, some evil. If any class of firearms are banned all that will happen in my humble opinion is that the 1/3 of the citizenry who are do-gooders and super law abiding will tiurn theirs in. The middle one third who were law abiding and own these weapons will not and instantly become criminals and turn toward the  far right-militia agenda creating a worse problem for us and the government. The last third are the criminals who  already are by definition lawbreakers and they  will just keep doing what they do. The best course of action is not a knee jerk emotional one but wait for calmer times and see what can be accomplished.



Huge BUMP!


“The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not lie” in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.”

Hs_max50

202 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

 The forums and my phone do not get along and it kicks up long winded posts so... I'll just leave this.CT has some of the strictest gun laws and that didnt stop this trajedy. Further laws will only give up your rights which you will never get back. If ya don't believe me, when was the last time ya saw a machine gun that didnt cost $20000 and was legal?More death and destruction has been brought on by a single set of laws than could ever be attributed to one type of person or weapon. And that is FACT!


Funny how the only enumerated right that contains the phrase "shall not be infringed" suffers the heaviest regulation. I'm still trying to find where it says anything about hunting and targets.

Wredcedar_max50

1242 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

I want to say just one word "Switzerland", figure it out.

Female_bodysurfer_max50

8159 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Bump Sgt. 405. 


The gun control issue always boils down to criminality.  But that's only one very important aspect of the Second Amendment.  


The guarantee of the 'right to keep and bear' extends the meaning of criminality to governments, forces, etc. that might imperil our Constitution by means of overthrow. 


The Second Amendment was written to guarantee the People a resort to guarrantee themselves Liberty.  A revolutionary gift from a new state founded on revolution. You won't find much expansion on THAT in a law enforcement website for obvious reasons.  Hardly anyone wants to talk about that.  Or, they are willing to wave the whole idea off as "unneccesary in a modern world.'  Really? I recall the smoking hole in the Pentagon, do you?  Then suppose the gas bomb attacks of 911were just the opening salvo that day/week/month/year(s)? 


What have you then in the Second Amendment?  The Founding Fathers thought about that one and covered the bases.  So...how do we cover our kids in a society like this one without gutting the Second Amendment by means of  modifying it into ineffecuality?


If you spend time here at Policelink you will discover just how precious Liberty is to LEOs in the Security Versus Liberty debate.  Yet, a surprising view LEOs are often the target of the criminal use of firearms!


 

Th_policeavatar_2__max50

734 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

I want to add this. We learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. One of the first things Adolph Hitler did on seizing power was banning firearms from civilian ownership.  What if every Jew could have answered their door with a gun when the Nazis came calling.  Yes many still would have died but would it have been in the millions? Would it have given them the opportunity to fight? We will never know since they never had the chance. They were law abiding, tax paying citizens believing their government would not harm then.


""Life is a storm.. You will bask in the sunlight one moment, be shattered on the rocks the next. What makes you a man is what you do when that storm comes"
Alexander Dumas-The Count of Monte Christo

Giu-turkey-distribution-004-801_max50

236 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

SGT405 says ...



I want to add this. We learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. One of the first things Adolph Hitler did on seizing power was banning firearms from civilian ownership.  What if every Jew could have answered their door with a gun when the Nazis came calling.  Yes many still would have died but would it have been in the millions? Would it have given them the opportunity to fight? We will never know since they never had the chance. They were law abiding, tax paying citizens believing their government would not harm then.



True and Bump


“The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not lie” in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.”

Female_bodysurfer_max50

8159 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Exactly.  Dialogue around mental fitness to own a firearm should extend the full spectrum.  Much is at stake.


What standards would be used?  To take the extreme...according to the Nazis, Jews were absent moral character as part of their genetic make-up.  According to the Nazis, Jews all had something wrong with their brains. The Nazis spent a long time documenting "proof" of why Jews should be denied basic rights, corraled into ghettos, shipped off to concentration camps, forced into labor, used for experiments, and exterminated. 


Let alone be allowed to keep and bear firearms!  The Shoah stemmed out of the Nazi state's idea of mental and moral lack of fitness, inherent evil.  An idea the German people bought lock, stock and barrel.  From the elementary school classroom on up.  Were German folk, so terrified by an economic crash, desperately seeking a leader to save them, so very different from us in the quest for an answer?


So, when we talk about state-imposed mental fitness quals to 'protect' our babies, we must also think about protecting our babies and ourselves from criminal use of such files, etc. by an unconscionable state.  We have a duty to do so.


SGT405 says ...



I want to add this. We learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. One of the first things Adolph Hitler did on seizing power was banning firearms from civilian ownership.  What if every Jew could have answered their door with a gun when the Nazis came calling.  Yes many still would have died but would it have been in the millions? Would it have given them the opportunity to fight? We will never know since they never had the chance. They were law abiding, tax paying citizens believing their government would not harm then.


Newpatch_sq90_max50

6021 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

What to you do?  Have every American take a physc test every year and put them on the no gun list?  This is a tough issue.  In the Newtown incident, it wouldn't have mattered.  He got the gun from his mother, who had every right to have them.  Maybe a gun locker would have helped, but I never had a gun locker to keep my guns away from my 21 year old son or daughter.  We now know he should not of had a gun because of his mental state, but hindsite is worth a million dollars.  If we could predict the future we would all be rich.


We need to find a better way, but guns will never go away.  If they ever tried that it would cause a Civil War with citizens of this Country.  Tough situation we have here. 


What I would like to know is what do we do until we figure it all out?


 


 


Photobucket
In Memory of the Fallen Officers

MODERATOR 3

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

 If a firearms owner has a family member in their house on psych meds, the firearms should be locked in a safe or removed from the house.

Wredcedar_max50

1242 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

MaxVirtus says ...



 If a firearms owner has a family member in their house on psych meds, the firearms should be locked in a safe or removed from the house.



A common sense idea that would be great if applied, but even if legislated (and how would it be enforced), doubt if the households that needed it the most would all comply.

Schultz3_max50

409 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

No matter how they legislate firearms, there will always be the reactive problem we have with gun related crime. People will not abide by laws, and law enforcement will be called AFTER the incident occurs. The only way I can see to reduce gun related crime is to arm law abiding citizens. They can beef up the requirements to conceal carry including mandatory and regular weapons qualifications to be paid by the applicant. More citizens will be armed and capable of stopping a threat. There would be far less casualties during the response of law enforcement.

Giu-turkey-distribution-004-801_max50

236 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Cedardale says ...



MaxVirtus says ...



 If a firearms owner has a family member in their house on psych meds, the firearms should be locked in a safe or removed from the house.



A common sense idea that would be great if applied, but even if legislated (and how would it be enforced), doubt if the households that needed it the most would all comply.



Bump MAX, No problem then they the sane who allowed access would be held accountable!  Bandits don't comply! The lawful will!  been there done that!


“The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not lie” in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.”

Giu-turkey-distribution-004-801_max50

236 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Cedardale says ...



MaxVirtus says ...



 If a firearms owner has a family member in their house on psych meds, the firearms should be locked in a safe or removed from the house.



A common sense idea that would be great if applied, but even if legislated (and how would it be enforced), doubt if the households that needed it the most would all comply.



Bump!


“The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not lie” in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.”