SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network

SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network (http://www.socnet.com/index.php)
-   The Lounge (http://www.socnet.com/forumdisplay.php?f=224)
-   -   Thread for Everything About Gun Control / The Second Amendment (http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=74822)

mdb23 5 February 2009 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC2W (Post 1103325)
This paragraph reminds me of that cop who shoots himself in front of a class of 3rd graders.....

Why? I'll admit that cops are just as bad....

And I always find it interesting that people feel justified making such sweeping generalizations (bullies with badges) when there are over 700K Officers in the US....It's about as dumb as my saying, "Well, everyone who joins the Army blah blah blah."

ANd how did we make the leap from, "Hey, if you want to carry concealed, you should have to take a safety class" to self written warrants and doors being kicked at 3am? Jesus....

Short people are paranoid....must be from getting beaten up by us bullies so often as a kid.;)

mdb23 5 February 2009 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by grog18b (Post 1103309)
I have been to the range twice a year to "qualify" with several fellow LEOs. I have witnessed my share of stupidity at those range sessions. How about the ATF guy that shot himself in front of a class of kids??? There are boneheads in ALL walks of life, bro, not just the civilian world. I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've heard range officers yell "Cease fire!" and heard a few shots after that order. I've seen fellow LEOs shooting the dirt berm at 50 yards. I've seen malfunctions resulting in the officer turning his pistol sideways, pointing it down the range line, to look at it... :

Once again, make everyone qualify....cops and civilians alike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grog18b (Post 1103309)
Let's say my 85 year old grand dad, a veteran of WW2 can't see well enough to pass your "qualification course". You gonna deny him the right to protect himself?:

Depends. Is he legally blind? Completely blind? I can see there being some type of sight requirement (like having it) in order to carry concealed in public.

I know, I know, that makes me a jack booted thug. Let me go write up my warrants for the weapons of innocent Christian Patriots.:biggrin:

MikeC2W 5 February 2009 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23 (Post 1103378)
Why? I'll admit that cops are just as bad....

And I always find it interesting that people feel justified making such sweeping generalizations (bullies with badges) when there are over 700K Officers in the US....It's about as dumb as my saying, "Well, everyone who joins the Army blah blah blah."

ANd how did we make the leap from, "Hey, if you want to carry concealed, you should have to take a safety class" to self written warrants and doors being kicked at 3am? Jesus....

Short people are paranoid....must be from getting beaten up by us bullies so often as a kid.;)

Stereotypes come from somewhere, bro. ;)

I always find it interesting when cops start talking about the 'general public', especially in reference to infringing the second amendment.

You can call me short and use the Lords name in vain all you like, but part of this thread included more than your narrow opinion on how to protect the 'general public'.

grog18b 5 February 2009 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23 (Post 1103380)
Once again, make everyone qualify....cops and civilians alike.
:biggrin:

Here's a "what if" for you...

What if, the Government implemented your plan to make everyone "qualify". The "Q" course was developed and implemented by the FBI. Each FBI instructor would have to "certify" every single LEO in the US. The qualification course consisted of a high stress shooting course, coupled with a long distance course, and accuracy course, consisting of being able to hit a quarter thrown in the air, 10 out of 10 times... If you hit outside the 5 ring on ANY shot, you fail.

If you fail the course, you can't carry a firearm anymore, and you loose your job... or get issued a nightstick... no more firearm for you... enjoy those gang bangers...

See where I'm going? Who makes the "Q" course? Who makes the decisions on how good people have to be in order to carry a firearm and protect themselves? Is Nancy Pelosi going to design the course? Chuck Schumer? If someone is tasked that, who does not want people armed... No one will pass the course, or the course will start out easy, with good intentions, then get impossible. You ever watch those pistol experts on the outdoor shooting channel? I am not a bad shot, but compared to them, I might as well use a straw and spitballs. Imagine if, to be "allowed" to carry a firearm, you had to perform similar shooting as those few?

You put a lot of faith in "big brother" to decide who is going to be able to carry a firearm... You also assume they are capable of logic, and being fair and open minded... Have you read the ATF letter from ATF FTB, that says that a 14" long shoestring with a loop on both ends IS A MACHINE GUN?
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...ring_Trick.jpg

The really amazing part of that letter, is that no one, not one person, with a modicum of common sense said "Wait a second here... This is fucking stupid..." You want the Government to come up with a "Q" course for firearms??? Not me, bro. Not me.

Silverbullet 5 February 2009 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC2W (Post 1103413)
Stereotypes come from somewhere, bro. ;)

I always find it interesting when cops start talking about the 'general public', especially in reference to infringing the second amendment.

You can call me short and use the Lords name in vain all you like, but part of this thread included more than your narrow opinion on how to protect the 'general public'.

Concur.

LEO's are the last ones I want involved in my right to bear arms and general firearms ownership.

They serve an important purpose in our society but it stops there.

zog 5 February 2009 16:22

The Second Amendment is ALL ABOUT the individual being armede to protect himself from the state. The Federalist papers and other commentaries dont talk about muggers and burglars. So yeh, police having authority over guns> Well, netter than Active Duty military (posse comitatus??) and NG (dunno exactly how posse comitatus fits there if they are under governor's command).

But qualification standards for concealed carry works for me. Hell, some of the scariest things in life happen at ranges, public and private, around here. I've seen idiocy at NRA headquarters range. As for standards, we have legislative and judicial branches to ironthat out.

Back when 2nd Amendment was written, concealing a weapon just wasnt much of a happening thing. The pistols back then, most were pretty damned large and heavy, Then the rifles and muskets ...

mdb23 5 February 2009 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC2W (Post 1103413)
Stereotypes come from somewhere, bro. ;)

Unfortunately, they often come from ignorance. Look at the stereotypes about contractors, Soldiers, etc....would you say that they are based in truth?

Funny how this thread is full of posts calling 99% of the population lemmings, sheeple, blah blah blah......all cops are idiots, etc.

But if I say that is a general safety course for ccw is a good idea, then I'm the elitist with a bad view of the general public.

Oh well, to each their own.

mdb23 5 February 2009 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by grog18b (Post 1103422)
Here's a "what if" for you...

You are missing my point.......when I say a qualification course, I mean a day of live firing to familiarize the person with the weapon they will be carrying, as well as to make sure they know how to load, unload, fire, make safe, etc....

I am not talking about a "must score 99% in order to carry" course..... I don't even care if they score the targets...that isn't the point.

The point is safety, not proficiency.

But don't believe me, Im the jack booted boogeyman who can't be trusted....secret agendas and all. LOL

grog18b 5 February 2009 18:04

Good lord man, don't take things so personally... Prior to retiring, I was a JBT too...



Boogieman... :biggrin:


..and I didn't say 99% of the population... just a LOT of them... :tongue:

...and who would pay for this "course"?

...and all cops are not idiots. I was an asshole. There is a BIG difference. :biggrin:

Greenhat 5 February 2009 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23 (Post 1103522)
You are missing my point.......when I say a qualification course, I mean a day of live firing to familiarize the person with the weapon they will be carrying, as well as to make sure they know how to load, unload, fire, make safe, etc....

I am not talking about a "must score 99% in order to carry" course..... I don't even care if they score the targets...that isn't the point.

The point is safety, not proficiency.

But don't believe me, Im the jack booted boogeyman who can't be trusted....secret agendas and all. LOL


That's what you're talking about. But it might not be what the legislation ends up saying.

A mandatory training course of any sort has the potential to become a way to deprive the people of the United States of their rights under the Second Amendment.

Shall we have a safety course on free speech?

Lancer33 5 February 2009 21:45

And this from Montana:

"Montana Firearms Freedom Act"

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

MikeC2W 6 February 2009 08:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23 (Post 1103518)
Unfortunately, they often come from ignorance. Look at the stereotypes about contractors, Soldiers, etc....would you say that they are based in truth?

Funny how this thread is full of posts calling 99% of the population lemmings, sheeple, blah blah blah......all cops are idiots, etc.

But if I say that is a general safety course for ccw is a good idea, then I'm the elitist with a bad view of the general public.

Oh well, to each their own.

I have to agree with you here, I'm constantly reminded of what LEO's think of the general public....does that include all 303 million of us?

Like grog18b said, not idiots....just assholes. :smile:

Got to love Montana!

GracieLou 6 February 2009 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by grog18b (Post 1102764)
The right of self protection trumps all others, for without this basic human right, all the others can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. I would also imagine there were those Jews in Germany circa 1934 that spoke just as you do. They willingly got on the trains, believing that the Government was protecting them, and moving them to a better place. Didn't quite work out for them, did it? Those that do not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it. Registration does lead to confiscation, and one has to look no farther than England, or Australia, or Canada to see it. When the Government knows what you have, and you name is on a list... WHY do you think it's there? WHY are those lists maintained?

One of the better books that I ever read on the 2nd Amendment topic, Unintended Consequences, echoes much of your post. Very long, but interesting read on Gun legislation throughout time here in the US and Germany, England, etc...

Grand58742 6 February 2009 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by GracieLou (Post 1103834)
One of the better books that I ever read on the 2nd Amendment topic, Unintended Consequences, echoes much of your post. Very long, but interesting read on Gun legislation throughout time here in the US and Germany, England, etc...

I enjoyed the historical background of Unintended Consequences, but the ending just wasn't what I expected or encourage. While John Ross makes a point to say that eventually the "gun culture" will get fed up with silly gun control laws, I cannot see outright murder as being the answer to the problems.

I don't want to spoil the book for anyone who hasn't read it, but from a historical basis, it's pretty detailed about the loss of rights of gun owners in the US.

mdb23 6 February 2009 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC2W (Post 1103776)
I have to agree with you here, I'm constantly reminded of what LEO's think of the general public....does that include all 303 million of us?

Like grog18b said, not idiots....just assholes. :smile:

Got to love Montana!

Sounds like you have a hard on for your local LE and have lumped everyone into one group. That's unfortunate, but you aren't the only one who has done it.

It would be incorrect to believe that all cops have a negative view of the public, or that all of us feel the same way about any issue at all.....we don't.

I still find it comical that there have been a ton of posts on here where service members have said that they would never go to a public range where they had to shoot with "civilians," or go to another shooting course where civilians were allowed to attend, due to the general lack of firearm safety and common sense exhibited by "civilians." Those comments go without notice, or are seconded as being correct.

But if I say that it would be a good idea for ccw applicants to take a short familiarization course that makes sure everyone knows how to load, unload, and safely operate their weapon, then I am an asshole who looks down on the general public.:confused:

I guess what is good for the goose is only good for the gander if the gander ain't a cop.....

GracieLou 6 February 2009 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grand58742 (Post 1104024)
I enjoyed the historical background of Unintended Consequences, but the ending just wasn't what I expected or encourage. While John Ross makes a point to say that eventually the "gun culture" will get fed up with silly gun control laws, I cannot see outright murder as being the answer to the problems.

I agree. I, like you, enjoyed the fictional account of historical events, but the ending was a bit bothersome...

grog18b 6 February 2009 19:00

I didn't read the book, but as I recall, it had a nice cover?

GracieLou 6 February 2009 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by grog18b (Post 1104139)
I didn't read the book, but as I recall, it had a nice cover?

Yes, the cover is what caught my attention....

MikeC2W 6 February 2009 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23 (Post 1104098)
Sounds like you have a hard on for your local LE and have lumped everyone into one group. That's unfortunate, but you aren't the only one who has done it.

It would be incorrect to believe that all cops have a negative view of the public, or that all of us feel the same way about any issue at all.....we don't.

I still find it comical that there have been a ton of posts on here where service members have said that they would never go to a public range where they had to shoot with "civilians," or go to another shooting course where civilians were allowed to attend, due to the general lack of firearm safety and common sense exhibited by "civilians." Those comments go without notice, or are seconded as being correct.

But if I say that it would be a good idea for ccw applicants to take a short familiarization course that makes sure everyone knows how to load, unload, and safely operate their weapon, then I am an asshole who looks down on the general public.:confused:

I guess what is good for the goose is only good for the gander if the gander ain't a cop.....

Dude, I don't think your an asshole - even though you're a liberal cop! :biggrin: I think that says alot.

In what state can someone get a permit without taking a course? I had to take a 8 hour NRA taught course here in CT. While it was completely retarded that I had to take this course, it's good that they have it for the 'general public'.

I've been to civilian ranges in Texas and CT and many in between and never had any issues with the 'general public'.

I don't have a hard on for my local LE, although there is a female cop who is quite hot. Maybe I've just been unlucky in never having met a cop that I like and maybe you've been unlucky with your experiences with the 'general public'.

That's unfortunate for you but your not the only cop that has done it.

You talk about all these stereotypes and the things that I've typed, yet all I am doing is seeing your stereotype and raising you a different one. :eek: So based on your posting apparently it's okay to view the 'general public' in a certain light, but I'm incorrect in viewing cops with a certain light! LMAO - beyond ridiculous.

And the last thing I need is a cop telling me what I need to do with respect to the 2nd Amendment... Protect and to Serve, thank you for your service but I don't need a cop with a negative view of the 'general public' telling me anything - that's a shotgun blast - not directed at you at all.

On a side note, I have many many many very good friends in law enforcement at all different levels - local, state, federal, etc.. they are good people doing good and great things. Most of them aren't racist, do not use excessive force and definitely know how to use a gun. However they do tell me plenty of stories of those who do.

Greenhat 6 February 2009 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23 (Post 1104098)
I still find it comical that there have been a ton of posts on here where service members have said that they would never go to a public range where they had to shoot with "civilians," or go to another shooting course where civilians were allowed to attend, due to the general lack of firearm safety and common sense exhibited by "civilians." Those comments go without notice, or are seconded as being correct.

So individuals post about their right to choose who they associate with and you find that comparable with:

Quote:

But if I say that it would be a good idea for ccw applicants to take a short familiarization course that makes sure everyone knows how to load, unload, and safely operate their weapon, then I am an asshole who looks down on the general public.:confused:
Your post on restricting people's rights?

Because that is what any mandatory training is. Regardless of your perception of it. A restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm sorry if you can't see that. Do you consider Miranda to be a pain in the ass?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:46.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved