Gun Control Compromise

[Daryl Hunt]

I'd be fine with that too. The point I'm making is that none of our existing laws were "compromises". They are one-sided restrictions.

^^^^^This. OK, I'll compromise. Repeal NFA 1934, GCA 1968, the 1986 full auto ban, and every state, and city law that restricts the Second Amendment, then they can have UBC's which is really just thinly veiled REGISTRATION.

I think we need full registration.

Too many drunk drivers are killing sober drivers. Let's ban sober drivers. Problem solved. That is how gun control works.

Should I waste my screw balll graphics on you for this one?

 

[JBond]

I'd be fine with that too. The point I'm making is that none of our existing laws were "compromises". They are one-sided restrictions.

^^^^^This. OK, I'll compromise. Repeal NFA 1934, GCA 1968, the 1986 full auto ban, and every state, and city law that restricts the Second Amendment, then they can have UBC's which is really just thinly veiled REGISTRATION.

I think we need full registration.

Too many drunk drivers are killing sober drivers. Let's ban sober drivers. Problem solved. That is how gun control works.

Should I waste my screw balll graphics on you for this one?

Whatever makes you happy and feel secure. Banning sober drivers from driving would reduce sober driving deaths from drunk drivers. It is the same logic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But the first 2/3rds of it still has all its meaning if you look at it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers who wrote, signed, and ratified it. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be used for good or evil. It certainly would have ability to overthrow a lawfully established government structure should it choose to do so.

As it turned out, their fears were unfounded when a standing Army of freedom loving, patriotic, flag waving, and ethical Americans was created. And, because the military respects the Commander in Chief who is civilian, we no longer fear a military coup in this country. (Whether lack of such fear is wise, might be considered when we see a rogue FBI leadership attempting such a coup these past two plus years.)

But the Founders didn't live to see that. They did see the central government and every state as possibly having need to call all the U.S. citizens to arms from time to time. An unarmed citizenry would not be of much use in such emergencies, but a well armed citizenry would make a formidable Army when called to service to defend their homeland or any part of it. So that was their rationale to ensure that no misguided government leaders would have constitutional authority to disarm or otherwise restrict the ability of the citizens to be armed.

Oh, I agree. But since then, the first two parts of the 2nd A have become worthless. They need to be completely taken out and the last 4 words need to be expanded and clarified. It's been a very long time coming but our chicken livered government won't grow a pair and present that.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Constitutional amendment that would leave less wiggle room in interpretation. But as long as we have a majority of SCOTUS justices who interpret law according to the INTENT of the Constitution there is no problem. It is only those who say it says something other than what the Founders intended who are a problem.

Therein lies the problem. We all have our own ideas to the original intentions of the FFs. Just those 4 simple words are just too vague.

Not vague at all for Constitutional scholars of which all Supreme Court Justices should be. A Constitutional scholar will be well grounded in the founding documents that inform us of what the Founders intended with each clause in the Constitution. And Constitutional scholars--that is REAL ones and not pretend ones--all agree that it was never given to courts at ANY level to make law, change law, or interpret law in any manner. Even when they rule that a law is unconstitutional, that was never intended to invalidate the law but was meant to inform those constitutionally authorized to make law where they were in error and fix it.

All good judges will be Constitutional scholars at least to the point that they know what the letter and intent of the law is so that they can determine whether we are within the law or are breaking it.

It's so vague that the Supreme Court avoids the 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague. And they hint that Congress is remiss in dealing with it.

It’s likely the Court simply doesn’t believe that Second Amendment cases are ripe for review, preferring instead to allow the case law to continue to evolve at the state level through the political process and in the lower courts.

And the appellate courts have been in agreement with the Second Amendment cases they’ve thus far heard; the justices aren’t going to grant cert to a gun case until there’s disagreement between or among the appellate courts.

Indeed, it could be decades before we have a comprehensive understanding as to what firearm regulatory measures and restrictions comport with the Second Amendment, and what firearm regulatory measures and restrictions do not.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It’s likely the Court simply doesn’t believe that Second Amendment cases are ripe for review, preferring instead to allow the case law to continue to evolve at the state level through the political process and in the lower courts.

And the appellate courts have been in agreement with the Second Amendment cases they’ve thus far heard; the justices aren’t going to grant cert to a gun case until there’s disagreement between or among the appellate courts.

Indeed, it could be decades before we have a comprehensive understanding as to what firearm regulatory measures and restrictions comport with the Second Amendment, and what firearm regulatory measures and restrictions do not.

If they would get consistent, we might know.

Miller laid out what appeared to be a bright-line rule, yet the Hughes Amendment survives, and the Court in a number of cases prior to Heller acted like the Miller rule didn't exist.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Thank you for the post. You can present Joe with facts, statistics and evidence, but the most you'll usually get is

I live in a black area and I see the Ferguson Effect right here. Don't get me wrong, our police are great. But why do extra for a job if doing it only gets you and your family targeted, the media bashing you, forced into resignation, or even killed?

We have a parking lot of an empty business where drug deals go down. It's on the intersection of two major streets and police drive past there all the time. I've witnessed deals go down while police were right there at the stoplight and didn't blink an eye. I've seen a vehicle right in front of me at a stop light, cross the double yellow line to pass the car in front of them, crash the light, and a cop going the other direction sitting at the same light doing nothing about it.

Prior to Ferguson that was unheard of. Our police used to do routine traffic stops and get troublemakers before they caused trouble. They would find people with suspended license, warrants, and even a few times a stolen vehicle or plates. Not anymore. Evil has dominated our country thanks to the left, and they couldn't be more supportive.

I am with you on the inefficacy of gun control but the police not only were wrong in Ferguson, but it is illegal for them to stop and question people standing on street corners, and likely the whole war on drugs is totally illegal. Government is not the source of any authority. Only individual rights are. So then whose rights need to be protected with the War on Drugs? Protect people from themselves? That clearly is not at all legal, and always fails, like Prohibition failed.

How were police wrong in Ferguson? Fat Albert robbed a store, pushed the clerk which is assault. When the officer tried to stop him for walking in the middle of the street, he reached into the officers car and tried to steal his gun at which point the gun went off. The officer tried everything to subdue the clown, but he was so high on pot he didn't know what he was doing. When he finally charged at the officer, the officer used his weapon in self-defense.

The officer did everything right, but as I said, evil left has taken over the country, and now we have more dead civilians and officers as a result.

You clearly have NO idea what happened at all.
Michael Brown did NOT at all rob a store and no call ever when out over a robbery.
He worked there, had a salary dispute, and took some cigarillos as payment.
While that was wrong, it was not strong arm robbery as you imply.

The police had no business stopping him. It is legal crossing in the middle of the block on residential streets like that.
Something did happen at the police car, but the result was not only he ran away in sandals, but the cop chased him.
So the cop was not at all afraid of him, and was bigger than Brown.
No THC was found in Browns blood.
Obviously he could not keep running in his sandals, so after they fell off, he turned to surrender, and was not just shot, but his head blown apart by multiple hits. At such as distance that there was no legal defense for shooting at all.
Wilson emptied his magazine in an unarmed person, over 50' away.
That clearly is deliberate, premeditated murder.
Then the body was left uncovered in the sun for half a day, so all the neighbors could be intimidated by it.

 

[Rigby5]

Let's remember that Obama heartily endorsed Australia's gun confiscation law, and then he complained that he couldn't understand why conservative accused him of wanting to take away people's guns. What other inference did he expect people to draw?

Except that Obama wanted much more stringent laws than Australia even.
Australia has no federal gun laws, but by province.
And it was not a confiscation, but a buy back, that only had an estimated 5% compliance.
That means all those assault rifles are still privately owned in Australia, and they are not going house to house using buyer records, like Obama wanted to do.

 

[Rigby5]

The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, the same type of arms that crooks and thugs might use against you, and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you

We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected government

To the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny

No, it limits the Federals powers. Nothing in the constitution deals with Natural or God Given rights. I suggest you read the constitution again without your preformed ideas about what you think it says.

You are correct that the constitution does not mention natural rights very much.
But it does mention them enough for us to know the founders believed they existed.

{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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 then clearly there is the stated assumption that the people, all individuals, to have inherent rights.
And combined with the Declaration of Independence, then clearly it is those inherent individual, natural rights, that are the only source of any authority at all.

And some natural rights are enumerated.

{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...}

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, the same type of arms that crooks and thugs might use against you, and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you

We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected government

To the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny

No, it limits the Federals powers. Nothing in the constitution deals with Natural or God Given rights. I suggest you read the constitution again without your preformed ideas about what you think it says.

You are correct that the constitution does not mention natural rights very much.
But it does mention them enough for us to know the founders believed they existed.

{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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 then clearly there is the stated assumption that the people, all individuals, to have inherent rights.
And combined with the Declaration of Independence, then clearly it is those inherent individual, natural rights, that are the only source of any authority at all.

And some natural rights are enumerated.

{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...}

When you cut through all the BS, the Rights aren't given by the Constitution. What the Constitution is saying is that the Federals cannot take those rights. The actual rights are given by the states and local governments.

 

[Rigby5]

The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, the same type of arms that crooks and thugs might use against you, and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you

We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected government

To the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny

No, it limits the Federals powers. Nothing in the constitution deals with Natural or God Given rights. I suggest you read the constitution again without your preformed ideas about what you think it says.

You are correct that the constitution does not mention natural rights very much.
But it does mention them enough for us to know the founders believed they existed.

{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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 then clearly there is the stated assumption that the people, all individuals, to have inherent rights.
And combined with the Declaration of Independence, then clearly it is those inherent individual, natural rights, that are the only source of any authority at all.

And some natural rights are enumerated.

{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...}

When you cut through all the BS, the Rights aren't given by the Constitution. What the Constitution is saying is that the Federals cannot take those rights. The actual rights are given by the states and local governments.

After I read the first 2 lines, I was going to agree.
But then I read the 3rd line and have to disagree.
Rights are never given by any form of government, but are inherent to all individuals, in a democratic republic, and are the justification for allowing government to then be formed.
The only source of any legal authority in a democratic republic, is what is necessary in order to defend inherent individual rights.
Since governments can defend inherent individual rights, then governments can then be delegated the power of inherent rights by protecting them.
States and local governments can't be the source of rights, or else there would be no source of authority that could make it legal to create state or local governments.

 

[JoeB131]

The militias were more local than state.
And yes that system did work for the US.
What is did not work for was imperialism and colonialism that requires more corrupt, paid, mercenaries.
The creation of the National Guard, as well as creating a large standing military, is completely illegal and can only result in dictatorship.

Okay this is where you are bordering into crazy town.

Here's the thing. Being a soldier in 2019 is a lot more technical than it was in 1776 when you "just showed up with your musket". It was actually pretty complicated then, which is why Washington had to import professional soldiers like Lafayette, von Steuben and Pulaski to show them how it was done.

And in case you have not noticed, the technology genie is out of the bottle, and anyone can make any firearm into a machine gun in about an hour.

yes, they can... they can also cook up Meth in their kitchen if they wanted to, but the government still cracks down on that sort of thing and they should.

Liar, the Waco massacre was created by flamethrower tanks, and there are lots of videos showing it very clearly.
Nor was there any valid legal basis for an arrest or assault even.

Koresh was illegally selling weapons and molesting kids. um, yeah, there was. Oh, there was also the armed shootout with other members of his cult which got the attention of ATF to start with.

How many illegal wars happened by the US in those 11 years that you did nothing at all about?

Zero. The only war that happened during my time in, the President went to Congress and got authorization to use force.

Crazy people are supposed to be in hospitals, and were until Reagan eliminated all the federal funding for health care back around 1986.

Again, you are a little confused. While Reagan's cuts didn't help, the real problem was in the 1970's, when the courts ruled that you couldn't lock people up for mental health reasons against their will unless they were an immediate danger. 18% of the population suffers from some form of mental illness, we can't lock them all up.

There actually are very few gun restrictions in any country except Japan, and they are not really free, but merely have benevolent dictatorships, like the UK.

Um, no. Japan and the UK lock up only 70,000 people each, we lock up 2 million and have another 7 million on probation or parole.

In the UK, the cops shoot maybe 2 people a year, our cops shoot 1200.

 

[Conservative65]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

To lefty gun haters, compromise means them chipping away at the 2A and expecting the rest of us to find a way to like it.

 

[JoeB131]

We have a parking lot of an empty business where drug deals go down. It's on the intersection of two major streets and police drive past there all the time. I've witnessed deals go down while police were right there at the stoplight and didn't blink an eye. I've seen a vehicle right in front of me at a stop light, cross the double yellow line to pass the car in front of them, crash the light, and a cop going the other direction sitting at the same light doing nothing about it.

Has it occured to you that the drug dealers have paid the cops off, and that's why they don't do anything?

Oh, look.

Corrupt East Cleveland police officers fabricated drug charges, stole money from man, lawsuit says

Prior to Ferguson that was unheard of. Our police used to do routine traffic stops and get troublemakers before they caused trouble. They would find people with suspended license, warrants, and even a few times a stolen vehicle or plates. Not anymore. Evil has dominated our country thanks to the left, and they couldn't be more supportive.

Again, not seeing how harrassing innocent people on minor traffic violations and shooting them is helping all that much... it makes the community trust the police less. Especially when the cops are corrupt and on the payroll of the drug dealers.

 

[JoeB131]

Our police do the job right, but when they do, they have to deal with people like you and the media

When they shot the 12 year old playing with the toy... they weren't doing it "right'.

You can pay me 100K a year, and I wouldn't take a job where I'm defenseless against harm and death because of evil people like yourself and the MSM.

Guy, you won't look for jobs you are qualified for that pay better because of your lack of ambition. It's why you don't have health insurance while your boss takes fancy Italian Holidays. Battered housewife Republican.

How were police wrong in Ferguson? Fat Albert robbed a store, pushed the clerk which is assault. When the officer tried to stop him for walking in the middle of the street, he reached into the officers car and tried to steal his gun at which point the gun went off. The officer tried everything to subdue the clown, but he was so high on pot he didn't know what he was doing. When he finally charged at the officer, the officer used his weapon in self-defense.

You left out a few parts, like he was running away, had his hands up, and wasn't an immediate threat. But never mind, you guys got your narrative about the scary black man, and you are sticking too it.

MEANWHILE, cities are getting a bit tired of paying out huge settlements for corrupt bullies with badges.

$6.5MM to Walter Scott's family
$6MM to LaQuan McDonald's family
$5.9MM to Eric Garner's family
$5MM to Tamir Rice's family
$1.9MM to Mike Brown's family
$1.5MM to Sandra Bland's family.

You see, you can whine about the how the police are being abused all day, but the fact is, the rest of us are realizing that we can't afford these guys.

 

[Conservative65]

quite likely cause those shouting a lot are full of shit.

WE ARE NOT COMING AFTER YOUR GUNS!!!!

well it may honestly start out that way. but the more they *try* to define the "bad" guns the more they "misfire" and wind up getting frustrated and doing a blanket ban on SEMI-AUTOMATIC w/10+ rounds it can hold.

which is about all of 'em.

they've yet to show a comprehensive knowledge of the topic so no; until they educate themselves, i'd not compromise with them either.

I have neighbors that are big anti gun lefties. When I go shooting, I make an effort to load the car when they are outside. I was lucky enough to do that recently and it allowed me to educate the ignorant on a few things. Sad part is she is a college professor and he works in some professional position at a major construction company.

I own an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. As I was loading both, she made a comment that people shouldn't own assault weapons. I showed her the Mini 14 asking her why I shouldn't own it and why she thought it was an assault rifle. She indicated her statement was about the AR-15 although she couldn't call it by name but referred to it as the "scary looking military one". I asked her was the Mini 14 OK to own and despite her claim that she didn't like guns, she was OK with it calling it a "hunting rifle". It gave me a chance to educated the supposed educated lefty. During the lesson it was explained to her that both fired a .223, functioned semi automatically, and had the same size magazine. They are the same gun other than the looks. I could tell she was surprised and wanted to say something negative about the Mini 14 but knew that would prove her dislike of the AR was based on how it looked rather than how it functioned. Haven't had any more comments in similar situations.

 

[Conservative65]

We have a parking lot of an empty business where drug deals go down. It's on the intersection of two major streets and police drive past there all the time. I've witnessed deals go down while police were right there at the stoplight and didn't blink an eye. I've seen a vehicle right in front of me at a stop light, cross the double yellow line to pass the car in front of them, crash the light, and a cop going the other direction sitting at the same light doing nothing about it.

Has it occured to you that the drug dealers have paid the cops off, and that's why they don't do anything?

Oh, look.

Corrupt East Cleveland police officers fabricated drug charges, stole money from man, lawsuit says

Prior to Ferguson that was unheard of. Our police used to do routine traffic stops and get troublemakers before they caused trouble. They would find people with suspended license, warrants, and even a few times a stolen vehicle or plates. Not anymore. Evil has dominated our country thanks to the left, and they couldn't be more supportive.

Again, not seeing how harrassing innocent people on minor traffic violations and shooting them is helping all that much... it makes the community trust the police less. Especially when the cops are corrupt and on the payroll of the drug dealers.

Has it occurred to you that there are bad in everything but that it doesn't mean all cops are bad?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have a parking lot of an empty business where drug deals go down. It's on the intersection of two major streets and police drive past there all the time. I've witnessed deals go down while police were right there at the stoplight and didn't blink an eye. I've seen a vehicle right in front of me at a stop light, cross the double yellow line to pass the car in front of them, crash the light, and a cop going the other direction sitting at the same light doing nothing about it.

Has it occured to you that the drug dealers have paid the cops off, and that's why they don't do anything?

Oh, look.

Corrupt East Cleveland police officers fabricated drug charges, stole money from man, lawsuit says

Prior to Ferguson that was unheard of. Our police used to do routine traffic stops and get troublemakers before they caused trouble. They would find people with suspended license, warrants, and even a few times a stolen vehicle or plates. Not anymore. Evil has dominated our country thanks to the left, and they couldn't be more supportive.

Again, not seeing how harrassing innocent people on minor traffic violations and shooting them is helping all that much... it makes the community trust the police less. Especially when the cops are corrupt and on the payroll of the drug dealers.

Has it occurred to you that there are bad in everything but that it doesn't mean all cops are bad?

Joe is a typical liberal: party of excuses. He finds isolated incidents to try and make some whacky point instead of just being honest and saying he's for evil and crime. Those people are just like that I guess.

 

[Conservative65]

We have a parking lot of an empty business where drug deals go down. It's on the intersection of two major streets and police drive past there all the time. I've witnessed deals go down while police were right there at the stoplight and didn't blink an eye. I've seen a vehicle right in front of me at a stop light, cross the double yellow line to pass the car in front of them, crash the light, and a cop going the other direction sitting at the same light doing nothing about it.

Has it occured to you that the drug dealers have paid the cops off, and that's why they don't do anything?

Oh, look.

Corrupt East Cleveland police officers fabricated drug charges, stole money from man, lawsuit says

Prior to Ferguson that was unheard of. Our police used to do routine traffic stops and get troublemakers before they caused trouble. They would find people with suspended license, warrants, and even a few times a stolen vehicle or plates. Not anymore. Evil has dominated our country thanks to the left, and they couldn't be more supportive.

Again, not seeing how harrassing innocent people on minor traffic violations and shooting them is helping all that much... it makes the community trust the police less. Especially when the cops are corrupt and on the payroll of the drug dealers.

Has it occurred to you that there are bad in everything but that it doesn't mean all cops are bad?

Joe is a typical liberal: party of excuses. He finds isolated incidents to try and make some whacky point instead of just being honest and saying he's for evil and crime. Those people are just like that I guess.

Joe is also the first one to whine "you can't judge all of a group by what a small number do". That is, unless a small number of police do something wrong then he applies it to all of them.

 

[JoeB131]

Has it occurred to you that there are bad in everything but that it doesn't mean all cops are bad?

Yes, that has occurred to me. But here's the problem.

Jason Van Dyke shot LaQuan McDonald 16 times, most of them while he was lying on the ground helpless.

Other cops filed false police reports to cover for him, went around to surrounding buildings to make sure any survellience tapes were erased, and the FOP spent millions defending him. And if a single tape of him shooting this kid hadn't managed to survive, he'd have probably gotten away with it.

Yesterday, a judge acquitted three cops who filed false reports on the shooting, coming up with all sorts of excuses for them. Today they are going to sentence van Dyke, almost five years after the shooting. Most people expect him to get a whopping 6 years.

The problem isn't the bad cops, the problem is the good cops and the system cover for them.

Joe is a typical liberal: party of excuses. He finds isolated incidents to try and make some whacky point instead of just being honest and saying he's for evil and crime. Those people are just like that I guess.

A kid playing with a toy isn't a crime. A lady talking back to a racist cop who pulled her over for a bullshit traffic violation isn't a crime. These are the kinds of incidents I am on about.

If you pull a gun on a cop and he shoots you, I really don't have any problem with that.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe is also the first one to whine "you can't judge all of a group by what a small number do". That is, unless a small number of police do something wrong then he applies it to all of them.

Again, see above. When Police Departments and the Prosecutors COVER for these bad cops (who are in the minority) then, um, yeah, they are in the wrong.

 

[2aguy]

I'd be fine with that too. The point I'm making is that none of our existing laws were "compromises". They are one-sided restrictions.

^^^^^This. OK, I'll compromise. Repeal NFA 1934, GCA 1968, the 1986 full auto ban, and every state, and city law that restricts the Second Amendment, then they can have UBC's which is really just thinly veiled REGISTRATION.

I think we need full registration.

Too many drunk drivers are killing sober drivers. Let's ban sober drivers. Problem solved. That is how gun control works.

Exactly.....that is exactly the way gun grabbers see guns.......