Gun Control Compromise

[JoeB131]

The uptick happened because of the Ferguson Effect where police quit being proactive to combat crime. Now in many black areas, the cops only go out when called.

No, what happened was that there was no uptick, but there was a decrease in calling the cops, because you never know when you might get Officer McShooty showing up blasting all the kids he sees.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

Well......that is the dictator mentality of the Democrat party. Sue or tax people into submission or out of existence.

Bring on the fight, because if you think the NRA is the only gun group out there, you have another thing coming. Here in my state, Ohioans For Concealed Carry is just one organization that have taken you anti-gunners to court and fought until victory, and every state has groups like that. I believe we have two other organizations outside of the NRA that does the same thing. I only remember OCC because I'm a member.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The uptick happened because of the Ferguson Effect where police quit being proactive to combat crime. Now in many black areas, the cops only go out when called.

No, what happened was that there was no uptick, but there was a decrease in calling the cops, because you never know when you might get Officer McShooty showing up blasting all the kids he sees.

View attachment 240568

Oh right, and it just happened right after Ferguson. What a coincidence. Even the police in your very own city confessed to the Ferguson Effect and I posted a link to your local paper that had the article. Thanks to the Commies, police are now more afraid of the criminal than the criminal is of the police. Thanks Obama!

 

[JoeB131]

Bring on the fight, because if you think the NRA is the only gun group out there, you have another thing coming. Here in my state, Ohioans For Concealed Carry is just one organization that have taken you anti-gunners to court and fought until victory, and every state has groups like that. I believe we have two other organizations outside of the NRA that does the same thing. I only remember OCC because I'm a member.

Well, you see, dummy, you think that you gun fetishists are the ones calling the shots... you aren't.

The NRA and other gun groups are run by the gun manufacturers... who see your fear as a prime market.

But start costing them money with lawsuits and decreased access to financing, they are going to get on board pretty quick.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh right, and it just happened right after Ferguson. What a coincidence.

Right. After Ferguson, people stopped calling the cops because it was pretty clear the cure was worse than the problem.

Even the police in your very own city confessed to the Ferguson Effect and I posted a link to your local paper that had the article.

And no one really beleived them because they have a long history of lying. And we only shot Laquan once and he was charging right towards us... oh, wait, there's a tape?

Thanks to the Commies, police are now more afraid of the criminal than the criminal is of the police. Thanks Obama!

Then maybe they need to find something else to do for a living, I'm sure we can find plenty of guys who'd happily take those 87K a year jobs and do them right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

I see your emotions are getting the best of you.

Just relax. You can always go live where you have no rights. We can't.

 

[iceberg]

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Unorganized Militia is a made up term. It's a bunch of red necks wearing pickle suits running around the woods brandishing weapons with a would be King for a leader. No Governor in their right mind would want these people representing the state in anything other than a "What Not to Do" film.

True. And, in the context of this discussion, the "organized" verse "unorganized" militia is irrelevant. The whole discussion of a militia is irrelevant. The attempt to make it relevant is dishonest and causes people on my side to be suspicious and unwilling to give a single inch or compromise.

You can understand how such wordplay and attempted trickery or pettifogging causes a much greater divide and distrust. Those making such arguments are not helping their cause. They are making themselves look like win-at-all-cost, ban and confiscate advocates and we all believe them to be such.

.

The same can be said for the other side as well. Don't give an inch even if it means making life dicey. I promote common sense Gun Regs where you keep your guns until you prove that you are a public nuicance or are capable of become one very easily. Such as, like that idiot at the range you showed. Or mentally unable to be rational with firearms. Common sense limits really don't take away the joys of shooting. Here are some points.

Remember, these are Grandfathered In. And yes, you can internet order any and all of these but you can't go into a Gun Shop and buy them anymore in state. Many were saying the End was Near over any and all of these. Guess what, the sun came up anyway.

1. Do I really need more than 20 rounds in a Mag? The Mags I used in the Military were 20 round mags. I don't know who came up with the 30 but in a combat situation, that 30 round just seems to hang up on too many things. And if you have to move and duck and dive, chances are you are going to render the mag useless when you damage it. The Wives tail that the combat troops used to tape two mags together is just that. I think an AR looks rather strange with a 30 round mag. If it were being pushed as a "Sporting Rifle" no more than 5 would be a waste. But the AR/M-16/4 was designed to take the 20 round mags from the first day it hit combat in 1959. In Colorado, we have a 15 round limit. That isn't something that is a deal breaker since it doesn't really take away the function of the AR if you are either using it for Sport or home defense. If you need more than that you are probably very near to dying anyway.

2. The Rails for things like the M203 and Silencer threading and other Combat Addons. In Colorado, these have to be left off on new guns and new builds.

3. We don't quite have Universal Background Checks but look for that to happen sometime this year. Right now, any sale or transfer of firearms must be accompanied with a background check even private ones. Colorado placed a 7 buck limit on it. It takes only a few minutes of time of the FFL dealer to run it so no big deal. I checked into 2016 and found that there were 127 convicted felons lied on their background checks. These were violent people that tried to rearm. It stopped them cold and put them back behind bars. The other couple of hundred thousand were able to purchase, or transfer their guns right on the spot. Tell me again that background checks don't work. That's 127 violent criminals taken off the street in one year alone. Is it enforceable? Only if they find that people are ignoring it and abusing it which has not been the case. Americans are primarily lawful. And sooner or later, the Criminal will trip up because we all know just how brilliant they are.

4. It was okayed for Teachers to be armed. But they left it up to the Teachers to make that determination. It was shot down 100% by the Teachers who refuse to go armed in the Schools but elect to have beefed up security instead. And we already know that beefed up security works. We've had two mass school shootings but since those changes were made, we have had arrests and lockdowns but no mass school shootings.

5. Open Carry and CCW. it's legal to Open Carry unless the area is off limits to OC. No license, no training, any person may OC. I have a problem with that. Luckily, the FAD has pretty well run it's course. The Local Sheriffs pretty well determine how the CCW has to be done. Most Sheriffs have you come in, fill out a form, run a standard background check you, make sure that you have fulfilled the proper requirements and on that very day, usually in the same hour, you receive your CCW. They don't even have to ask why you want it. It's suffices that you just want it. While the OC has been problematic, the CCW has only a couple of incidents in the last 10 years or so. CCW people will think before they do because the biggest part of qualifying for that CCW is to learn the law and the repercussions. And those repercussions should scare the hell out of you.

6. I live in the Reddest part of the State. At one time, people were playing the Fear Card and open carry and ARs were flying off the shelf. In the last year or so, the OC has all but disappeared and in the gun shops, the
ARs are on sale and gathering dust. The AR market saturated already. The conventional Hunting Rifles have made a remarkable comeback including the Mini-14. What I saw was something bordering on a Cult. But the Cult has run it's course. Fewer and Fewer people are buying into the Fear Card each day. And the Sun still comes up and life still goes on.

thats fine daryl ,,,just dont call yourself a 2nd supporter ,,,

oh, it also violates the oath you supposedly took

 

[Wry Catcher]

Careful now, you are expressing views like my own. If it ever gets out, you are going to have to turn in your secrit gunnutter decoder ring.

I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.

Gun ownership is a great and solemn responsibility that NO ONE should take lightly.

My local gun range is HYPER anal about gun safety issue and will immediately ban anyone who acts in any way that is unsafe, without a warning, permanently. You get no second chances with these guys.

Video: Man Points Gun at Himself, Friend's Head for Shooting Range Selfies



Guns are not toys.

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

Oh man, you are so out of touch with reality you need to have your head examined. The only time when our form of government has been "too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it" is at this moment.

Your second paragraph, if you truly believe it, is paranoid, and your final one is the best argument for gun controls, particularly people as disturbed as you who should never have access to a gun.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bring on the fight, because if you think the NRA is the only gun group out there, you have another thing coming. Here in my state, Ohioans For Concealed Carry is just one organization that have taken you anti-gunners to court and fought until victory, and every state has groups like that. I believe we have two other organizations outside of the NRA that does the same thing. I only remember OCC because I'm a member.

Well, you see, dummy, you think that you gun fetishists are the ones calling the shots... you aren't.

The NRA and other gun groups are run by the gun manufacturers... who see your fear as a prime market.

But start costing them money with lawsuits and decreased access to financing, they are going to get on board pretty quick.

And what are you going to sue them for, being a group that represents millions of tax paying citizens? If that’s the case, maybe we can start suing government unions until they become extinct.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

When you say "slave rapist" to whom are you referring?

If it was supposed to be about the militia, you are right. It is worded terribly.

It should be amended to eliminate any confusion. Same goes for the 14th Amendment, which is also poorly worded but unambiguous about any person born in the U.S. automatically getting citizenship status. There is no need to look at any intent beyond the very text of the 14th Amendment when the clause in question is unambiguous.

Anchor babies are citizens of the U.S.

Individuals have the right to any arms...ANY.

We have the same problem, and the same remedy.

Amend.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why are people afraid to amend the Constitution?


Is it because they don't want to open the door to other amendments?

Like these:

Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]

Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed.

Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power]

The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Article [of Amendment 3] -- [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]

Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.

Article [of Amendment 4] -- [No Abuse of the Treaty Power]

No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.

Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press]

The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.

Article [of Amendment 6] -- [Power of States to Check Federal Power]

Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

Article [of Amendment 7] -- [Term Limits for Congress]

No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Article [of Amendment 8] -- [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]

Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.

Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.

Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People]

Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.

Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

Article [of Amendment 10] -- [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution]

The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.

 

[2aguy]

Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate has gone down 49%

No, it hasn't.

It went down in the 1990's thanks to Bill Clinton's crime reform bill and because after we made abortion legal, we had less malcontents making it past the medical waste container. (20 years after Roe v. Wade, crime went down... what a surprise. Not.)

But homicide kind of levelled off after 2000 and has been going up.

And still OBSCENELY high compared to other industrialized countries.

Moron....our gun crime rate went down 49% since 1993 as Pew reports.....it went up a little in 2015 because of the Ferguson Effect and obama and his Justice Department attacking the police.......it is now going back down again...

It went down...

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

In 2015 it started to go up with the Ferguson effect thanks to obama, his Dept. of Justice and the ACLU

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

Now with obama gone, the murder rate is going down again as the police go back to work...

Chicago Murders: Crime Wave Is Not Nationwide, However | National Review


Whatever the case with Chicago, the national trends are encouraging. Look, for instance, at the ten biggest U.S. cities. We now have homicide figures for the first half of 2018 (via the FBI, police departments, and local media coverage) and can compare these with data from the same time period in the last eight years. We had crime spikes in 2012, 2016, and 2017. But 2018, at least so far, looks good.

The ten-city total is down by 6 percent relative to last year. Not standing-ovation territory, but certainly the right direction.


Another indicator is the trend in the cities red-flagged by criminologist Richard Rosenfeld when crime first rose between 2014 and 2015. Rosenfeld found that these ten cities alone accounted for nearly two-thirds of the increase in homicides nationwide.

As you can see, in 2018 crime dropped in eight of ten of these red-flag cities, and cumulatively the decline was 14 percent.

What about the Big Apple? Regardless of scary reports that citywide shootings were up 16 percent in July, and that Bronx murders had risen by almost one-third, the long-term picture still looks good. There’s been an increase since last year — but last year was an unusually safe one.
When crime first shot up in 2015 and 2016, I pointed out that there’s a big difference between a crime spike, which may last a few years, and a crime boom, such as the one this country suffered from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. I’m sticking to my story.

 

[2aguy]

Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate has gone down 49%

No, it hasn't.

It went down in the 1990's thanks to Bill Clinton's crime reform bill and because after we made abortion legal, we had less malcontents making it past the medical waste container. (20 years after Roe v. Wade, crime went down... what a surprise. Not.)

But homicide kind of levelled off after 2000 and has been going up.

And still OBSCENELY high compared to other industrialized countries.

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Moron....our gun crime rate went down 49% since 1993 as Pew reports.....it went up a little in 2015 because of the Ferguson Effect and obama and his Justice Department attacking the police.......it is now going back down again...

It doesn't matter. If he was really serious about getting his gun control in place, he would be pushing for a constitutional amendment.

He is not. It is just hot air.

 

[2aguy]

The uptick happened because of the Ferguson Effect where police quit being proactive to combat crime. Now in many black areas, the cops only go out when called.

No, what happened was that there was no uptick, but there was a decrease in calling the cops, because you never know when you might get Officer McShooty showing up blasting all the kids he sees.

View attachment 240568

Oh right, and it just happened right after Ferguson. What a coincidence. Even the police in your very own city confessed to the Ferguson Effect and I posted a link to your local paper that had the article. Thanks to the Commies, police are now more afraid of the criminal than the criminal is of the police. Thanks Obama!

You are correct...obama, his Department of Justice, and the ACLU with a bunch of black lies matter protestors.....the Ferguson Effect...

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

And there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes ‘the militia’ to take up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

There’s nothing as to the ‘criteria of tyranny’; no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’ allowing the rights enshrined in the First Amendment to be discarded and replaced with armed rebellion.

What’s moot is the argument as to what the Second Amendment means, as the Heller Court has already given us that meaning: the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess handguns pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service.

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’ – it is subject to government regulation and restrictions.

The Second Amendment affords citizens the means by which to defend themselves from criminal attack and lawlessness, not defend against a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

If you use the context of the time it was written, it made sense. That is why there was a limit to the numbers of Army that could be had at any one time for the newly formed Federal Government. But the Civil War threw that out the window. And the Spanish American War was hard to contain with those limits. WWI, those limits were completely removed. What the Military Law has is provisions to prevent the Government from using it to put law abiding citizens down. Even though a President is the Commander In Chief, the Military will only follow legal orders. In my lifetime, one time, a President lost the support of the Military. That's one briefing that will stay with me forever. I wished it never happened. It's not through any actions or orders from the President, it was the Joint Chiefs questioned the Presidents Sanity.

The first 2/3rds of the 2nd amendment are not longer applicable. And the last 4 words worked well for the day but the whole 2nd amendment really needs to be undated to modern times. Not thrown out, just amended. But our chicken livered congress are more worried about their gravy train than they are about doing what needs to be really done.

 

[Dale Smith]

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

And there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes ‘the militia’ to take up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

There’s nothing as to the ‘criteria of tyranny’; no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’ allowing the rights enshrined in the First Amendment to be discarded and replaced with armed rebellion.

What’s moot is the argument as to what the Second Amendment means, as the Heller Court has already given us that meaning: the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess handguns pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service.

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’ – it is subject to government regulation and restrictions.

The Second Amendment affords citizens the means by which to defend themselves from criminal attack and lawlessness, not defend against a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

If you use the context of the time it was written, it made sense. That is why there was a limit to the numbers of Army that could be had at any one time for the newly formed Federal Government. But the Civil War threw that out the window. And the Spanish American War was hard to contain with those limits. WWI, those limits were completely removed. What the Military Law has is provisions to prevent the Government from using it to put law abiding citizens down. Even though a President is the Commander In Chief, the Military will only follow legal orders. In my lifetime, one time, a President lost the support of the Military. That's one briefing that will stay with me forever. I wished it never happened. It's not through any actions or orders from the President, it was the Joint Chiefs questioned the Presidents Sanity.

The first 2/3rds of the 2nd amendment are not longer applicable. And the last 4 words worked well for the day but the whole 2nd amendment really needs to be undated to modern times. Not thrown out, just amended. But our chicken livered congress are more worried about their gravy train than they are about doing what needs to be really done.

Only in your mind..........

 

[iceberg]

The uptick happened because of the Ferguson Effect where police quit being proactive to combat crime. Now in many black areas, the cops only go out when called.

No, what happened was that there was no uptick, but there was a decrease in calling the cops, because you never know when you might get Officer McShooty showing up blasting all the kids he sees.

View attachment 240568

the mckinney texas incident. down the highway from me.

what you don't know, or have chosen to ignore, are the kids who were "busted" have participated in previous gang related activity against the police in mckinney up to and including previous gunfire at officers.

but hey - you got a cute pic. just no idea the history behind it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.