gun-control efforts calls for sheriff to inspect gun owner's homes

[NoNukes]

The problem is allowing the government access without a warrant to check and see if you are following some arbitrary rules. Look at DC where you had to basically keep the weapon unusable to be following the law. The purpose was not to improve safety, it was to disarm citizens.

Why dont we trust our citizens to follow guidlines on thier own? If they screw up they can be punished criminally AFTER they screw up.

Again, these rules are never about safety, they are about making the guns so annoying to have people stop keeping them.

Do you want to have to run to your gun safe, load the gun, remove the stupid trigger lock and THEN be able to defend youself against someone following NONE of these rules?

Gun safety is about gun safety. No, people cannot be trusted do do the right thing, especially with something as serious as firearms.

That is the crux of the argument. If YOU dont think you can be trusted enough to own a firearm, then don't own one. I know I can safely handle and own one, and I likewise trust my fellow citizens to be able to.

I swear progressives are like the freaking Sith in Star Wars movies. They Sith understand the Force, so they seek to use it to control everyone and everything. Progressives can't understand how people want to live in a different way then they do, thus they need to use government to FORCE them to live a certain way.

Once again, you cannot trust people to do the right thing. How do you prevent people who cannot safely own a gun from owning them? Does this not violate their constitutional rights?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That is how civilized countries work.

No that's how a nazi country works

really !!!!!​

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).

Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon.

Proponents of the theory sometimes point to the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as evidence that, as Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano put it, “those able to hold onto their arms and their basic right to self-defense were much more successful in resisting the Nazi genocide.” But as the Tablet’s Michael Moynihan points out, Napolitano’s history (curiously based on a citation of work by French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson) is a bit off. In reality, only about 20 Germans were killed, while some 13,000 Jews were massacred. The remaining 50,000 who survived were promptly sent off to concentration camps.

Robert Spitzer, a political scientist who studies gun politics and chairs the political science department at SUNY Cortland, told Mother Jones’ Gavin Aronsen that the prohibition on Jewish gun ownership was merely a symptom, not the problem itself. “[It] wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group,” he explained.

Meanwhile, much of the Hitler myth is based on an infamous quote falsely attributed to the Fuhrer, which extols the virtue of gun control:

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

The quote has been widely reproduced in blog posts and opinion columns about gun control, but it’s “probably a fraud and was likely never uttered,” according to Harcourt. “This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect,” researchers at the useful website GunCite note.

“As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”

Bartov added that this misreading of history is not only intellectually dishonest, but also dangerous. “I happen to have been a combat soldier and officer in the Israeli Defense Forces and I know what these assault rifles can do,” he said in an email.

He continued: “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”

Communist nazi or Totalitarianism call it what you want this is what dumb ass wants maybe you also want it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Soooo, your father in law comes over and checks for "safety"?

Why is that.....does he not trust that you are capable of handling it yourself?

I guess that's why you want armed government officials rummaging through your home to take care of what would be YOUR personal responsibility.

Too fuckin' funny!

My father in law was a builder and knows much more about safety. Not deferring to him would be rather stupid. No government official is going to be rummaging through my house. If I owned a gun, the police would have the right to make sure it is stored safely. I would have no problem with that. The gun owners that I know think that it is a good idea, we do not fear government tyranny.

Where the hell do you live? It sure as hell isn't the U.S., where the police absolutely have no right to inspect your home for safe gun storage. Certainly without cause and a search warrant.

You mean that I got into another discussion about America with a god damn fucking foreigner?

 

[martybegan]

Gun safety is about gun safety. No, people cannot be trusted do do the right thing, especially with something as serious as firearms.

That is the crux of the argument. If YOU dont think you can be trusted enough to own a firearm, then don't own one. I know I can safely handle and own one, and I likewise trust my fellow citizens to be able to.

I swear progressives are like the freaking Sith in Star Wars movies. They Sith understand the Force, so they seek to use it to control everyone and everything. Progressives can't understand how people want to live in a different way then they do, thus they need to use government to FORCE them to live a certain way.

Once again, you cannot trust people to do the right thing. How do you prevent people who cannot safely own a gun from owning them? Does this not violate their constitutional rights?

You have to restrict only those who have been before a judge, and been found incompetent, or convicted of a felony. Thats due process and its the only way to deny a person thier rights.

If we cannot trust people to do the right things, how can we trust the police/government to be the only ones with the right to be armed? We sure as hell cannot trust criminals to follow the rules.

 

[Bigfoot]

The last time the Sheriff came to my house I wouldn't let them in the door. They got pissy about it but I wasn't going to tolerate their bullshit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That is the crux of the argument. If YOU dont think you can be trusted enough to own a firearm, then don't own one. I know I can safely handle and own one, and I likewise trust my fellow citizens to be able to.

I swear progressives are like the freaking Sith in Star Wars movies. They Sith understand the Force, so they seek to use it to control everyone and everything. Progressives can't understand how people want to live in a different way then they do, thus they need to use government to FORCE them to live a certain way.

Once again, you cannot trust people to do the right thing. How do you prevent people who cannot safely own a gun from owning them? Does this not violate their constitutional rights?

You have to restrict only those who have been before a judge, and been found incompetent, or convicted of a felony. Thats due process and its the only way to deny a person thier rights.

If we cannot trust people to do the right things, how can we trust the police/government to be the only ones with the right to be armed? We sure as hell cannot trust criminals to follow the rules.

Armed law enforcement officers are vetted by 1) criminal background checks; 2) both written and oral psychological evaluations; 3) credit checks; 4) at least three interviews with professionals in the field; 5) School records, academic and deportment; 6) military records; 7) civil records (marriage, law suits, liens, etc); 8) interviews of references and former employers; 9) and a polygraph. Then, if everything is good, a conditional offer of employment is tendered and the probationary officer is assigned an FTO (field training officer) who will evaluate the new officer for one year. At anytime during that year the probationary officer can be terminated and no reason for such termination is offered.

 

[Papawx3]

face it guys.

gun laws are perfectly constitutional and lying about that it is not already decided makes you look insane

Sorry I had to leave the discussion this morning but I had to go to work. Gotta pay the bills, you know.
Honestly though I thought that perhaps between then and now you would surely offer some sort of partially intelligent comment. I was wrong.

Go back to school, child. Your ignorance is showing.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Once again, you cannot trust people to do the right thing. How do you prevent people who cannot safely own a gun from owning them? Does this not violate their constitutional rights?

You have to restrict only those who have been before a judge, and been found incompetent, or convicted of a felony. Thats due process and its the only way to deny a person thier rights.

If we cannot trust people to do the right things, how can we trust the police/government to be the only ones with the right to be armed? We sure as hell cannot trust criminals to follow the rules.

Armed law enforcement officers are vetted by 1) criminal background checks; 2) both written and oral psychological evaluations; 3) credit checks; 4) at least three interviews with professionals in the field; 5) School records, academic and deportment; 6) military records; 7) civil records (marriage, law suits, liens, etc); 8) interviews of references and former employers; 9) and a polygraph. Then, if everything is good, a conditional offer of employment is tendered and the probationary officer is assigned an FTO (field training officer) who will evaluate the new officer for one year. At anytime during that year the probationary officer can be terminated and no reason for such termination is offered.

And with all that, you get some officers like Raphael Perez, and his fellow gang member cronies who become cops, and still participate in gang activity while doing their duties as PO's.

You get those LACSD types who were running their own gang inside L.A. County Jail. Complete with their own gang tattoos and gang hand signs. Running drugs inside the jail, ordering hits and assaults, sometimes doing them themselves, or working in unison with incarcerated street gang members, or estabished prison gangs, too include AB, Peckerwoods, Mexican Mafia, Southern Mexicans, etc..

You get the female LACSD Sheriff who was busted for helping her gangbanger boyfriend fence stolen property gained by burglaries and home invasions. Mostly commited over the hill in the Thousand Oaks area, and other parts of more affluent areas in Ventura County.

 

[martybegan]

Once again, you cannot trust people to do the right thing. How do you prevent people who cannot safely own a gun from owning them? Does this not violate their constitutional rights?

You have to restrict only those who have been before a judge, and been found incompetent, or convicted of a felony. Thats due process and its the only way to deny a person thier rights.

If we cannot trust people to do the right things, how can we trust the police/government to be the only ones with the right to be armed? We sure as hell cannot trust criminals to follow the rules.

Armed law enforcement officers are vetted by 1) criminal background checks; 2) both written and oral psychological evaluations; 3) credit checks; 4) at least three interviews with professionals in the field; 5) School records, academic and deportment; 6) military records; 7) civil records (marriage, law suits, liens, etc); 8) interviews of references and former employers; 9) and a polygraph. Then, if everything is good, a conditional offer of employment is tendered and the probationary officer is assigned an FTO (field training officer) who will evaluate the new officer for one year. At anytime during that year the probationary officer can be terminated and no reason for such termination is offered.

Just like the guy in California who went nutso and had to be burned out before he shot himself in the head....

Police need to be vetted mostly because they have to deal with human conflict and have the power to arrest people. How much of thier training is actually firearm training?

 

[GuyPinestra]

In Ireland the police are allowed to come to your house and check if you gun is stored safely according to regulations. The gun owners who I know think that it is a good idea.

You mean that storing a gun fully loaded and the safety off under the pillow of your youngest child is not the proper place to store a gun....I will take that as a no....

For the love of god what is wrong with you people.
Whatever people do in other countries is just gospel to the lefties here.

No, it means storing guns in a proper locked gun locker in a locked room.

That'll come in real handy when some lunatic kicks your fucking door in...

"Ahhh, excuse me Mr. Psycho, can you give me a minute while I unlock my gun safe so I can fairly defend myself?"

Yeah, that'll work!

 

[GuyPinestra]

Once again, you cannot trust people to do the right thing. How do you prevent people who cannot safely own a gun from owning them? Does this not violate their constitutional rights?

You have to restrict only those who have been before a judge, and been found incompetent, or convicted of a felony. Thats due process and its the only way to deny a person thier rights.

If we cannot trust people to do the right things, how can we trust the police/government to be the only ones with the right to be armed? We sure as hell cannot trust criminals to follow the rules.

Armed law enforcement officers are vetted by 1) criminal background checks; 2) both written and oral psychological evaluations; 3) credit checks; 4) at least three interviews with professionals in the field; 5) School records, academic and deportment; 6) military records; 7) civil records (marriage, law suits, liens, etc); 8) interviews of references and former employers; 9) and a polygraph. Then, if everything is good, a conditional offer of employment is tendered and the probationary officer is assigned an FTO (field training officer) who will evaluate the new officer for one year. At anytime during that year the probationary officer can be terminated and no reason for such termination is offered.

And even with all of that we STILL get THIS guy...

Christopher Jordan Dorner (June 4, 1979 – February 12, 2013)[4][5] was a former LAPD police officer and ex-United States Navy reservist. He was charged in connection with a series of shooting attacks on police officers and their families from February 3 to 12 that left four people dead, including two police officers, and three police officers wounded. He was the subject of one of the largest manhunts in LAPD history,[6] spanning two U.S. states and Mexico.[7]

 

[Wry Catcher]

You have to restrict only those who have been before a judge, and been found incompetent, or convicted of a felony. Thats due process and its the only way to deny a person thier rights.

If we cannot trust people to do the right things, how can we trust the police/government to be the only ones with the right to be armed? We sure as hell cannot trust criminals to follow the rules.

Armed law enforcement officers are vetted by 1) criminal background checks; 2) both written and oral psychological evaluations; 3) credit checks; 4) at least three interviews with professionals in the field; 5) School records, academic and deportment; 6) military records; 7) civil records (marriage, law suits, liens, etc); 8) interviews of references and former employers; 9) and a polygraph. Then, if everything is good, a conditional offer of employment is tendered and the probationary officer is assigned an FTO (field training officer) who will evaluate the new officer for one year. At anytime during that year the probationary officer can be terminated and no reason for such termination is offered.

And with all that, you get some officers like Raphael Perez, and his fellow gang member cronies who become cops, and still participate in gang activity while doing their duties as PO's.

You get those LACSD types who were running their own gang inside L.A. County Jail. Complete with their own gang tattoos and gang hand signs. Running drugs inside the jail, ordering hits and assaults, sometimes doing them themselves, or working in unison with incarcerated street gang members, or estabished prison gangs, too include AB, Peckerwoods, Mexican Mafia, Southern Mexicans, etc..

You get the female LACSD Sheriff who was busted for helping her gangbanger boyfriend fence stolen property gained by burglaries and home invasions. Mostly commited over the hill in the Thousand Oaks area, and other parts of more affluent areas in Ventura County.

Yep, shit happens. The same miscreants exist in every facet of society, which is one reason some controls over weapons in general and guns in particular is so very necessary.

 

[martybegan]

Armed law enforcement officers are vetted by 1) criminal background checks; 2) both written and oral psychological evaluations; 3) credit checks; 4) at least three interviews with professionals in the field; 5) School records, academic and deportment; 6) military records; 7) civil records (marriage, law suits, liens, etc); 8) interviews of references and former employers; 9) and a polygraph. Then, if everything is good, a conditional offer of employment is tendered and the probationary officer is assigned an FTO (field training officer) who will evaluate the new officer for one year. At anytime during that year the probationary officer can be terminated and no reason for such termination is offered.

And with all that, you get some officers like Raphael Perez, and his fellow gang member cronies who become cops, and still participate in gang activity while doing their duties as PO's.

You get those LACSD types who were running their own gang inside L.A. County Jail. Complete with their own gang tattoos and gang hand signs. Running drugs inside the jail, ordering hits and assaults, sometimes doing them themselves, or working in unison with incarcerated street gang members, or estabished prison gangs, too include AB, Peckerwoods, Mexican Mafia, Southern Mexicans, etc..

You get the female LACSD Sheriff who was busted for helping her gangbanger boyfriend fence stolen property gained by burglaries and home invasions. Mostly commited over the hill in the Thousand Oaks area, and other parts of more affluent areas in Ventura County.

Yep, shit happens. The same miscreants exist in every facet of society, which is one reason some controls over weapons in general and guns in particular is so very necessary.

Missing the point again, as usual. These are COPS, the ones that are supposedly vetted, and some of them still go bad.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And with all that, you get some officers like Raphael Perez, and his fellow gang member cronies who become cops, and still participate in gang activity while doing their duties as PO's.

You get those LACSD types who were running their own gang inside L.A. County Jail. Complete with their own gang tattoos and gang hand signs. Running drugs inside the jail, ordering hits and assaults, sometimes doing them themselves, or working in unison with incarcerated street gang members, or estabished prison gangs, too include AB, Peckerwoods, Mexican Mafia, Southern Mexicans, etc..

You get the female LACSD Sheriff who was busted for helping her gangbanger boyfriend fence stolen property gained by burglaries and home invasions. Mostly commited over the hill in the Thousand Oaks area, and other parts of more affluent areas in Ventura County.

Yep, shit happens. The same miscreants exist in every facet of society, which is one reason some controls over weapons in general and guns in particular is so very necessary.

Missing the point again, as usual. These are COPS, the ones that are supposedly vetted, and some of them still go bad.

Yes, shit happens. What per capita is the question.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Law enforcement can come on my property and look at the weapons I have stored, as long as they have a warrant to search. If they try to seize, I start shooting.

 

[PaulS1950]

There are no guns that I am aware of that are illegal to own. People own fully auto machine guns, RPGs, quad 50s, chain guns, mortars, cannons, anti-aircraft guns and many more. All it take to own one of these is a $200 tax stamp a background check and about a hundred pages of paperwork. Then there is of course the cost of the firearm of your choice.

There are a few places in the country that sponsor annual shoots where anyone can pick a gun and shoot it - all you pay for is the ammo. A quad fifty will go through more than 1200 rounds a minute and at around $2 a round... well you figure it out. Chain guns can go through over 3600 rounds per minute and well each mortar round is very expensive as are the 20 mm anti-aircraft guns.

Aint America great - in what other country can a common man own RPGs and anti-aircraft guns legally?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Once again, you cannot trust people to do the right thing. How do you prevent people who cannot safely own a gun from owning them? Does this not violate their constitutional rights?

You have to restrict only those who have been before a judge, and been found incompetent, or convicted of a felony. Thats due process and its the only way to deny a person thier rights.

If we cannot trust people to do the right things, how can we trust the police/government to be the only ones with the right to be armed? We sure as hell cannot trust criminals to follow the rules.

Armed law enforcement officers are vetted by 1) criminal background checks; 2) both written and oral psychological evaluations; 3) credit checks; 4) at least three interviews with professionals in the field; 5) School records, academic and deportment; 6) military records; 7) civil records (marriage, law suits, liens, etc); 8) interviews of references and former employers; 9) and a polygraph. Then, if everything is good, a conditional offer of employment is tendered and the probationary officer is assigned an FTO (field training officer) who will evaluate the new officer for one year. At anytime during that year the probationary officer can be terminated and no reason for such termination is offered.

All of that doesn't mean shit when

[ame=http://youtu.be/0gAWRcOYUtY]cop murders 6 kids, then commits suicide - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/GVR4wTPsHYk]Police Beat Homeless Man To Death (Graphic Warning) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/jFNDK8PQGNw]Cop shoots & Kill unarmed Man(Oscar Grant) - YouTube[/ame]

Officers in homeless Michigan man's shooting get punished - CNN.com

 

[PaulS1950]

The bill that was introduced to ban "assault weapons" in washington State will never make it out of committee if it even gets that far. Another bill was also introduced to declare Washington another state that protects it's citizen's rights to have weapons of any kind as long as they are manufactured in and stay within the state of Washington. The bill would also prevent and criminalize any attempt by federal agents to arrest a citizen for the possession of such a weapon. Since the weapon has never travelled interstate the federal government is restricted by the constitution from any involvement in the state as supported by the 9th and 10th amendments.

I doubt this bill will get passed but I can hope.......

 

[Papawx3]

Law enforcement can come on my property and look at the weapons I have stored, as long as they have a warrant to search. If they try to seize, I start shooting.

Right. But they can't even get a warrant without showing a judge that they have 'probable cause' to believe you have already committed a crime. Then they may search only specified areas for specific evidence related to that crime.
They may not, under any circumstances, just walk onto your property to look for contraband.
Of course that would mean violating several other amendments to the Constitution, not just the 2nd.

I guess the Constitution itself, at least to those on the left, really is "just an old piece of paper".

 

[martybegan]

Yep, shit happens. The same miscreants exist in every facet of society, which is one reason some controls over weapons in general and guns in particular is so very necessary.

Missing the point again, as usual. These are COPS, the ones that are supposedly vetted, and some of them still go bad.

Yes, shit happens. What per capita is the question.

Considering the pool of legal gun owners is quite large, and the pool of police officers is relatively small, the number of bad legal gun owners per capita might be smaller than the number of bad cops per capita.