Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 5
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 129

Thread: Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by CarryNM View Post
    This is a bit of a sticky wicket to say the least. Most states say no felony convictions,no domestic violence, and it goes on and on. IF they have no felony convictions etc. they have the legal right to possess a CCL, but being known to have ties to gangs with bad members in my mind should preclude them from getting a license. The law is the law, and if folks do not like it, they must vote. I and My Wife both have CCL, and are proud to be able to serve in this fashion. Knowing a gang member had a CCL definitely would keep me from shopping or frequenting any location where he/she and their friends went.

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


    I believe that says it best... why would I try to out word Benjamin Franklin?
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  2.   
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    1) I am not talking about Utopia. I'm talking about the Constitution and your complete and utter ignorance of its meaning(s). Rhino covered the absurdity of your idea of "due process" quite well, but that's just one among many concepts contained in that document that you have no earthly idea of.
    Can't even begin to count how many times I've read the Constitution, but it's a bunch. Love the Constitution, don't want to change a word of the Constitution, don't believe it's an evolving thing, and I, like all of you, I want to protect and defend it. Once again, I'm NOT advocating tearing up the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights. Every single concern that's been expressed here I have taken seriously, other than insults in innuendo. Due process, notification, criteria, time limits, redress, and Gawd knows whatever else anyone has stated have all been things that I agreed have merit. I made comments, I made suggestions, but mostly I made a request for discussion. I never once said that anything I said was final. In fact, I have repeatedly expressed my own reservations about the slippery slope, the sticky wicket. Where did I ever claim to be a Constitutional Scholar, Lawyer, or even lower, a politician? All I said was a cop got asked a question, he answered it, and I thought there might be some merit. I do prioritize that honest, law abiding people are more important to me than criminals. That some don't agree with my position on that is perfectly fine, nay, dare I say is actually OK.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    2) I have no police whatsoever in my life. Don't need 'em and don't want 'em barking out orders to show me your papers because a freakin' light bulb burned out on my license plate. I do everything I can to keep cops out of my life, which makes me a responsible, law-abiding citizen, not a cop-hater, a Utopian or someone in need of a tin foil hat. If I don't speed or drive erratically, I am not feeling particularly "protected" when I come upon an unconstitutional DUI stop that makes me late for work for no legal rationale that includes probable cause, yet I can be yanked out of my car and have it searched with no recourse if I say, "You have no legal authority to pull me over. I'd like to be on my way. May I go now?"
    You have police everywhere around you, whether you like it or not. There's the local cops, county sheriff, FBI, DHS, ICE, Secret Service, Tribal Police, Highway Patrol, US Marshals, and postal inspectors just to name a few. You say you're not a cop hater or don't need a tinfoil hat, but if that's true, why do you say things like "barking out orders to show me your papers"? Don't you mean "Asked for my drivers license"? I think what you want to do is equate our police to the Nazi SS. Think that if you want, but shame on you for it if you do.

    Incidentally, as a person that doesn't drink or use drugs, I really don't like the DUI stops. Stopping everyone or randomly selecting a certain few for no apparent reason doesn't seem right to me at all. One time many years ago, I was driving through the middle of nowhere Texas when I came upon a "Stop". I was the only car for miles, but there was a road block and a cop in a uniform I didn't recognize. I stopped, rolled down the window and asked what's up? "INS sir. Are you an American citizen?" "F**K YOU MOTHER ********R" I shot back. Guess he figured I was cause he just waved me through.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    3) Never saw Demolition man. I prefer the real world where the rule of law applies to everyone, cop and un-oathed citizen alike. There is nothing toothless or useless about the toolbox known as "The Constitution of the United States of America" unless you're a dictator wannabe who can't be bothered with such irrelevant antiquities.
    Demolition Man was with Sly Stallone and Sandra Bullock as Lt. Huxley. To say the least, she could frisk me vigorously.

    So there can be no laws beyond those enumerated within the Constitution? Should all cops be federal than. What about States? If the toolbox known as the Constitution is so all encompassing, what's the purpose of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights? I'll save ya from having to go look it up, it says the following:

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    So while you're spooling up all this righteous indignation in the misguided belief that I want to take your gun away, I would like to point out that what I'm talking about is something pertaining to my state. Even at that, I once again want to point out that all I asked for is discussion. I'm not going to retreat from anything but I will say that I have no want, wish or desire to deprive anyone of their Constitutional rights, federal or state or anywhere else. It may turn out that there is too much of a burden to overcome and such a law is not possible. But I have to think that if the legal hurdles can be overcome, not withstanding the objections of the Constitutional Scholars in this thread, it would help keep the streets safer. But I want to reiterate, it would have to be done right. I'm just sayin, if it can be done right, it would be a powerful tool.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    No you don't. You fiercely support giving them more unconstitutional tools with which to harass people who have not committed a crime that they can make a due process case against them for! Somehow I doubt the Framers intended for a burned out tail-light to be the 4th Amendment-compliant probable cause that cops use to search, seize, prosecute and convict someone carrying a gun when they wrote the 2nd Amendment just two Articles prior!
    Dude, you don't know me. I've been on the internet from the very beginning and in all that time, tens of thousands of posts, I have never once spoken one single letter in support of a dirty cop. I am an ardent supporter of the good cops and I have little use for any bad ones at all. When I watched the cops beating Rodney King for the first time, I was outraged. When they got away with it at trial I was FURIOUS. That smartass cop that illegally parked his motorcycle on the sidewalk and wouldn't give his name and badge number when asked by a citizen, (yes, 12 year olds are citizens too), I was pissed. He should be suspended WITHOUT pay. I don't like dirty cops and I won't do anything to protect them. I do think they have rights and they have to be preserved, but I don't approve of the blue wall. In my conversations with other cops about that I've found that they all feel the same. And no, I'm not so naive as to believe they would tell me if they didn't feel that way, but I'm better than most at spotting a liar. (You don't believe me, I know. I don't care. I know you know I don't care. See, I'm that good.)

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    This is obviously WAY over your head. Self-responsibility, self-reliance and unapologetic adherence to both the letter and spirit of the law that is the Constitution are tin-foil-hat and Utopian flights of fantastical delusional fancy in your world.
    I don't think any part of this discussion is over my head. As a matter of fact, I think I've been rather open minded and fair. Not only have I been accepting that people don't share the same position as me, I have encouraged people to speak their mind. I certainly haven't told you to be quiet but I recall making a comment above about which one of us supports the Constitution. I supported your freedom of speech, did you do the same for me? Another poster in this thread has told me to leave the forum. I guess my voice doesn't need to be heard.

    Once again for oh I don't know what are we up to now, a couple dozen times, I started the thread to promote discussion on an interesting subject. What's way over who's head here? I didn't try to suppress people from voicing an opinion different than mine, I encouraged it.

    All I've heard out of you is that "It's un Constitutional". Others have said the same thing. A few have said why. They made good points. They expressed reasonable and legitimate concerns. A reasonable and legitimate concern can be expressed about any law on the books or any law to be proposed. People bitched about not being able to drink a beer while driving. Who's idea was it to come up with the concept of 'legal age for consent' so we can screw 14 year old girls? For that matter, "You want to free the what". There's a lot of need for laws in this country. None are perfect. Some are just stupid, like legal age of consent. But every single one of them warrants discussion by us. Dammit, if we don't talk about it, the politicians do what they want to do. How do you like life under Obama, Reid and Pelosi? These idiots are in power because we weren't paying attention. Stop deluding yourself that any of this is going over my head. I never said my mind was made up, I just said there's a problem. You don't like my solution, come up with a better one. I'm all for it. But so far, the only solution I've heard is to leave things the way they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Yeah, and where did that number come from? Eric Holder is going to "investigate" an individual by the name of ummm....Eric Holder for his Justice Dept. illegally targeting journalists for doing their jobs under the protections of the 1st Amendment. My bet is that he will say his Justice Dept. is 99.999% pure as the wind-driven snow when all is said and done. Your estimate has exactly as much validity to it for me.
    My Dad used to have a saying, "It's a lousy scorekeeper that can't win a game". Such wise words for so much of life. Don't get me started about Holder. He belongs in jail. So do most of the rest of the politicians. Now I will join the chorus bitchin about corrupt politicians.


    As far as the 99.999% number, I do have to admit, I pulled it out of the air. It's probably not accurate. Lets see, I wonder how many actual instances there are every year of a cop actually (seriously) breaking the law. I'm talking serious stuff, not the bogus complaints people file to get themselves out of trouble. Nationally, how many times a year do you think this happens. 100? 1,000? Lets say 10,000 just for gits and shiggles. How many busts are made every year in full compliance of all laws and department policies? Let's take a look:
    14,172,384.
    From 2005 to 2008, there are on average 14,172,384 arrests made per year in the United States. This is based on data from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’™s Uniform Crime Reporting program. Of all reported arrests, drug abuse violations remains the greatest, with on average 1,819,970 arrests made per year.

    This fact is verified on : February 25, 2010. All facts are verified every 6 month after the last modification.

    So I stand corrected, using this new number, I come up with 99.9992944024%. Boy do I feel dum being that far off.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I will defend me and mine from anyone who tries to victimize me and mine. That includes gangstas, cops (sorry for being redundant), burglars, armed robbers, rapists, child molesters, whomever. I'll guarantee you that if a gang of out of control cops picks me or mine to be the next Kelly Thomas because they don't like our protective-of-our-rights "attitudes," I will still die like Mr. Thomas did, but I'll be damned if I'll go out without inflicting some heavy bruising by testing whatever bit of body armor is closest to me.
    Whatever. Yawn.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    It came from you lamenting the po' po' pitiful cop having to follow the law and let someone who they had no case on go. Like I said, this stuff is WAY over your head.
    Never said that. Never thought cops shouldn't have to obey the law just like the rest of us. What I want is a law that they have to follow that gets guns out of the hands of known, criminal gangstas. So I'm confused, you want the criminals to have guns? Is there anyone you don't think should be able to have a gun? I like good guys with guns because there will always be bad guys with guns. But I don't think it's a particularly good idea to hand a gun back to a bad guy because they slipped through a loophole. That's not saying closing the loophole is going to be simple. There are many legitimate concerns to take into account.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    If bigger, more intrusive, more powerful government is the answer, you're asking the wrong question(s).
    Tinfoil hat dude. Better get it, they can hear what you're thinking.

    No, I don't want a bigger government. Tea Party guy, remember. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws and effective means to enforce them.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    If the worst among us can have their rights trampled upon on the whim of either cops or politicians who write unconstitutional laws so they can go a' tramplin', then my rights are every bit as much at risk. My rights are not up for discussion, no matter how stealthily you attempt to cover the attempt in flowery "we're jus' talkin' here, friend, nothing to get worked up about" kind of disingenuousness.
    Mine either. I don't have anything to worry about. I'm not a bad guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    When you get involved in the protection, preservation and expansion of freedom, you and I will get as healthy as can be together. As long as you're working the opposite side of that coin though, you are the enemy. Sorry if my bluntness offends, but like I said, my rights are not up for discussion.
    No offense taken at all. Nor am I upset. I promise.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The "system" you were talking about was booking, jail, bail, court, prison, and parole/probation on the basis of nothing more probative than the associations of an individual.
    Didn't say that. I said based on a defined set of criterion.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Man, your hair must really be mussed up from all the founding, constitutional concepts whizzing right over your head.
    Nah, they just blow right through. The whistling gets to me after a while though.

    I
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    ndeed. That list includes the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. The 1A gives the right to video-tape LEOs in public doing their jobs according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling by refusing to hear another appeal. Would you like me to post 50 or so examples (out of a nearly endless list from which to choose) of people getting arrested at least, and many times getting beat up, tazed, pepper-sprayed, fined, having their cameras seized and worse to demonstrate how cops cannot be trusted to abide by those constraints on their own? Pick an Amendment. Endless examples of 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th violations are everywhere around the interwebs. I guess if one closes their eyes to it, it doesn't count though. Well, my eyes are wide open, and it all counts to me.
    Ahh. Now it makes sense. We've been talking about two different Constitutions. What Constitution gives a 1st Amendment right to videotape a cop? I never read that in ours. I am however fully aware that we have a right to film our cops in public. A right I wholeheartedly support. In fact, I think all departments should require their LEO's to wear a camera whenever they're on duty. For that matter, so should every politician, especially the President and Congress.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Still lamenting that the po' po' pitiful cops have to follow the law, eh?
    No. Wasn't in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    That said, cops' duty is not to protect us, an admittedly grossly vapid ruling by SCOTUS in at least two modern cases, Deshaney v. Winnebago County in '89, and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez in '06.
    Really? Crap, I better start carrying a gun. By protect us I was referring to society as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Even if they did actually have such a duty though, under the rubric of "protecting" us, you would give them authority to prosecute us for our associations.
    No I wouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    No, that is the crime of abuse of power under the color of authority. Try to keep up.
    You were talking about crime by association. I said crime by association is a sticky wicket. I think we can both agree that's never going to be allowed.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    "Some" constitutional protections are "warranted"????? You have obviously been too busy replying to a couple or three of us, and not reading the replies that have come in-between. Hardly anyone agrees with you about "some" constitutional protections being warranted, which unequivocally states that you think that "some" of the ones presently in place are unwarranted. And you're under the delusion that "we all agree" on that?
    Ok, I could have maybe stated that more eloquently. I should have said all Constitutional protections must be carefully enforced. Does that make you feel better? Does that mean that you and agree on what we each believe is Constitutional or not? I think we still have some air.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    1) What are "non-com's" in the context of this paragraph?
    Non combatant. Sorry if I got that wrong. Military brat, not a vet.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    2) You only quoted one officer, based the title of the thread on that one officer's quote, and commented on only that officer's quote in your OP. Now I'm supposed to respond to what that officer or his comrades said that you didn't quote?
    Well, you don't have to.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Absolutely, unambiguously wrong. I desperately want to believe that cops can and do follow the law, protect The People's rights without angst or attempts to manipulate the law to get around the constitutional constraints that they break every time they make up a rationale to harass somebody, and I sincerely and desperately want to believe that all people, cop or otherwise, are intrinsically good and trustworthy. But to give into those desperate desires is what would be the "fantasy narrative" here, so I choose to view the world, including cops, for what it/they are.
    You mean 99.9992944024% honest?

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!
    I think it's pretty obvious that I'm not afraid to be honest. If I felt like I was being abused, I wouldn't be afraid to say something.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Then you're either one of them, or a known groupie of LE, or an utter fool.
    Nope, nope, and probably. I keep dancing with you don't I.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I'm going to run out of characters here, so I'll spare you the commentary on the rest. Partly because we're both repeating ourselves here, but mostly because it just whizzes right over your head anyway. Enjoy your delusions.
    Thank you, I will.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Uhhhmmmmm Budadude? You are the most Constitutionally IGNORANT person EVER on this forum.... No, Really!!!!!! There have been some real doozies in the past (and a few still post now), but budadude, You have surpassed them 1000 times over..... Please get a clue before posting again, You have already proven that you know absolutely NOTHING about what you are talking about, so no-one is going to agree with you anyway... Dont go away mad, just........
    You should actually read what I've been saying. You don't have to agree with me, it would be nice if you added something constructive to the conversation other than just making a nondescript insult. And in the end, if what I'm saying is so bothersome to you, why are you reading it?
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by zeebea View Post
    Really, if these gangbangers have not been in trouble then they are either not a problem or are much smarter than these cops. If the latter is true then fellas its time for a career change. Ant law that prohibits you from a right based on someone's opinion is the definition of stupid.
    Can't say as I disagree with you. That's why the concept of establishing a set of parameters, such as a conviction in court with documented proof of gang activity, is reasonable to me. Not saying that's the only thing, but it's an idea that can be added to other ideas to come up with a law that gets guns out of the hands of gangsters while still protecting people's rights to due process.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Taupo, New Zealand, New Zealand
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    I think the Klan, as a group, was successfully prosecuted in a federal civil suit. Assets were seized.
    Would the assets seized have been ones owned collectively by the Klan or would they have gone after each individual's assets?

  7. #46
    In your corner Blues in this discussion/argument except for this:
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post

    ...Many, if not most, cops are also full time criminals, as are prosecutors, judges, attorneys general, presidents and even Supreme Court justices...


    Blues
    .
    This statement is untrue, preposterous, and even libelous. My long service in the Marine Corps and tangential service to a federal law enforcement agency brought me in regular contact with many, many good people, at all the levels of law enforcement you mention, who are not thugs, brownshirts, and certainly not career criminals. Many? Most? You pose as some kind of constitutional guru, but this is the rant of a crackpot. You need to get out more.

  8. #47
    This debate is really lame. Does any think that gang members give a damn about the laws? The initiation to get into many gangs requires they commit a felony to be accepted. From armed robbery, drive-by shooting, assault, rape, and even murder of a rival gang member or a LEO.

    Wanna bet that any gang members in NY carries only 7 rounds in the stolen gun they have?
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    You weren't talking about criminals. You said the people in question hadn't been convicted of any crime.
    I said hadn't been convicted of a crime serious enough to keep them from possessing a gun. Somewhere in this thread I gave examples. The eyes are starting to cross so I'm not sure exactly to whom or where I said it is. Like most states, Nevada has a list you things you can't do or you're not eligible for a CCW. Convicted of a felony is pretty common in all states. Convicted felons can't be in possession of a firearm. But if you've been convicted of non felonies you sure as hell can have guns. You can have all kinds of guns. Yay, the 2nd Amendment is safe. The list of non felony crimes that gangsters can be involved in would stretch from my house to the San Francisco bay. You can be arrested and convicted for a hundred 'less than felony' crimes, all of them clearly related to gang activity, and still NOT be prevented from possessing a gun.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    You don't think the 2nd amendment protects a right? If not, you're on the wrong web site.
    I think the 2nd Amendment is a right and one worth protecting. But as you yourself have stated, there are exceptions. Criminals, crazies, c'mon, we're on the same page here. Where we differ somewhat is the point in which someone is declared criminal enough to be prohibited from possessing a gun. I think being an active member of a criminal gang is a good enough reason. Others have suggested that the standard needs to be more. So I added 'convicted of a crime with proof of criminal gang related association' or something to that effect.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    And if you think wanting to protect that right means putting your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem, then you're definitely on the wrong web site.
    I don't want to take any right away from anyone that deserves to have them. For example: People convicted of a felony no longer deserve their 2nd Amendment right
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    The 2nd amendment isn't a loophole.
    Didn't say it was. I was talking about criminal gang members in possession of a gun because loopholes in our statutes let it happen.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    You're pushing for a law that grants the government one power that is characteristic of a police state, the ability to criminalize people based on their association and the ability to remove their rights without due process based on that association, an association that can be redefined or reinterpreted at will since it has no clear definition.
    Yes, but I accepted that the concerns people had stated here about due process and guilt by association were reasonable and I proposed addressing those very concerns. I can see why y'all think I'm being so closed minded.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Maybe we should have you arrested for trying to deny us our constitutional rights, even though you haven't done it yet. Or maybe we should give you a speeding ticket because we think you're going to speed tomorrow or next week. You sound like a speeder to me. How much did that crystal ball cost you by the way? You didn't tell us you were omnipotent. This conversation might have gone much easier if you had just identified yourself as God in the first place.
    What constitutional right did I try to deny any law abiding citizen. Criminals on the other hand, lose a lot of their rights just by the very nature of them committing crimes. A jail cell is a denial of freedom of movement. There's some people who need to have their freedom of movement restricted.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    And if they've been convicted of it, then their gun rights are already gone, making this conversation moot.
    If they've been convicted of a felony. Lots of gang related crimes don't rise to the felony level. Almost all prostitution in our area is gang controlled now. Not a felony.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Yet again, the 2nd amendment is not a loophole. Neither is the 5th or 14th, which both contain due process clauses. If you really consider those loopholes, may I suggest North Korea as a new residence for you?
    Nope. I think I'm on record as agreeing due process is reasonable to add to this.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    If that sarcasm bothers you, then perhaps you can cease with the ridiculous suggestions that those of us who want to uphold the constitution and protect our rights are somehow trying to protect gang members.
    Crap I'm lost again. What sarcasm? Oh well, doesn't matter, I've got a great sense of humor and I always get a laugh out of a well placed dig.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    You said, "The officer pointed out that there are known gang members who are committing serious crimes, but are crafty enough to stay just 'legal' to possess a firearm. In other words, they just haven't been caught." That means they have been convicted of no crime, i.e. they have they legally committed no crime since they are innocent until proven guilty. So yes, you said people that committed no crimes should be on the list. Or at least that's the proposal the officer made that you've been supporting.
    No, in other words they're just crafty enough to stay legal enough to be able to possess a gun. The fact someone hasn't been convicted of a felony doesn't mean they've never been convicted of a crime. The distinction I'm proffering has to do with known active members of criminal gangs.

    Interesting fact. My older brother had a relatively clean record. Some fighting, drunk and disorderly, nothing major. He was also the guy the Hell's Angles sent when you didn't pay your drug bill. When they sent him whoever he was after would never be right again for the rest of their life, providing they survived. Now c'mon, c'mon, c'mon, tell me how warm and fuzzy it makes you to know he would be able to get a CCW here in NV. Well, he would if he hadn't been killed by a rival bike gang.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    You've established no factors whatsoever. The only thing you've given us is 'if the cops say he's a bad guy'. That's highly subjective hearsay, not a quantifiable, measurable or verifiable legal factor.
    I think I've been open and agreeable to factor after factor after factor.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    That's already a criteria. Those convicted of felonies are already denied gun rights.
    Yes they are. What about those convicted of gang related activities and crimes that don't rise to the level of a felony?
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Yeah. Good thing we already revoke gun rights for that kind of stuff, huh?
    Lost again, sorry. Insert whatever clever retort you think I'd come up with here.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Read my post again. You claimed you weren't proposing a statute, but that's exactly what you and the cop you talked to are doing. It's what the title of this thread is, a proposal for a new statute. I said nothing about your legislature or governor.
    No it isn't. The title of the thread is Cop wants a law. Wanting a law and writing a statute are two different things. Statutes are the actual legislation that becomes the actual law. Cop wants a law and fat guy wants a law mean we can talk all we want, but it ain't a law just cause we want it to be so.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    I already explained that above. The statement you posted from the cop said they had been convicted of no felonies, which means legally they had not committed any because they are innocent until proven guilty. Or are you and the cop proposing to change the presumption of innocence in our legal system too?
    The operative word being felony.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    It wouldn't break my heart, but when you give the government the power to confiscate guns without the commission of a felony just because they don't like a certain group or class of people then you have opened the door to tyranny. I'm not doubting your intentions at all. I know you want to fight gangs and that's a very noble idea. But the solution you're proposing is the suspension of our constitutional rights. If the solution to the gang problem was as simple as what you're proposing we would have done it a long time ago. It just isn't that simple.
    It isn't a felony to discharge a firearm in a congested area, but they're gonna confiscate your gun if they catch you.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Well......
    .
    The proposal the cop gave you, as it was posted here, targets people who have not been convicted of crimes. By definition that makes them law abiding citizens. Regardless of who they associate with or what we may think of them because of their activities, they are grouped with the rest of us in that legal category. In order to target them, you have to target law abiding citizens. There is no other choice legally. I'm sure you'd like to attach all manner of other qualifiers or conditions that you feel would single 'them' out and leave 'us' alone, but it still won't change the fact that the government now has the power to target law abiding citizens and remove their gun rights, and maybe even without due process. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of legal precedent, but opening that door would be a fatal first step to the total surrender of all our gun rights.
    FELONY, FELONY, FELONY. I said hadn't been convicted of a crime serious enough to prohibit them from possessing a firearm..
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    I'm not sure if Century 21 has an office in North Korea. Maybe you should check.
    Why? Is talking about something un-American?
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    We did. Heart's in the right place, but a really bad idea.
    Lost, insert, you get the idea.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    In your corner Blues in this discussion/argument except for this:
    .


    .
    This statement is untrue, preposterous, and even libelous. My long service in the Marine Corps and tangential service to a federal law enforcement agency brought me in regular contact with many, many good people, at all the levels of law enforcement you mention, who are not thugs, brownshirts, and certainly not career criminals. Many? Most? You pose as some kind of constitutional guru, but this is the rant of a crackpot. You need to get out more.
    I think the batteries are low in his tinfoil hat.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #50
    Nope, nope, nope. Laws and rights deal in facts which must be undeniable. What's a gang? I belong to The Emergency Nurses Association. They have backed in writing actions against hospitals that put profit ahead of patients best interest. If just one of these has been ruled illegal, then I can't have a weapon? 60 years old, muscular dystrophy which is why I believe I need help with self defense, clear background checks, CCL, numerous local and state awards, The Presidents Volunteer Action Award, but as an ENA member I'm a gang member? I sympathize with police officers, but wishing weapons would only work for good people and that unicorns will help us is just as good as anybodies opininon of what "a gang" is.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast