Can I resume our discussion/debate?

[mljdeckard]

I asked you before, and you didn't answer. I'm only asking again because I'm bored.

I frequently recreate in the deserts of Utah. I like to go out where I am unlikely to see anyone else, throw a rifle across the handlebars, and ride my 4-wheeler. Unfortunately, the price of illegal pot has made it worth it for Mexican drug cartels to harvest it in record-breaking amounts. It is so bad, they are now offering rewards, $1 per plant seized. There have been several busts in places where I have explored and hunted in my lifetime. Not could, hypothetically go one day, places I have BEEN. The guys who grow this stuff don't leave it, they babysit it, there's too much cash at stake, they can't afford to leave it unattended.

So, (again,) my question to you, is if I am out on a trail, I head up a canyon, and I run into something I wasn't supposed to see. I immediately turn around to leave, and there are three gentlemen in the trail who have a lot riding on what I just saw. Maybe something will happen. Maybe it won't. But IF IT DOES, ......how many bullets am I going to need? Five? Cuomo says I will need seven. How many do you think I need?

 

[Ms_Dragon]

Everything that could have been said has already been said, repeatedly, with zero effect.

This sort off attention seeking is tedious in the extreme.

 

[timmy4]

We have no common ground. Like I said your viewpoints are unfathomable to me.

How would a national firearm registry work? Describe your ideal law.

How would a universal background check system work? Describe your ideal law.

You use the word debate alot. Debate can only happen if the two sides know what they are debating.

Sure. Let me describe it.

1. At the time the database is set up, you would be required by law to inform the government of what firearms you own, along with serial numbers. Let's say there is a 90 day period for you to notify the govt, by phone, mail, internet, or at the post office. You will receive a registration paper for each firearm. There would be a small fee: anywhere from $5-20. After 90 days, any firearm that you are found with without registration, you are subject to a fine of $50, and if it happens twice in a year, you're subject to it being seized. HOWEVER, no police or government authority can search you for illegal firearms without a warrant based on the reasonable suspicion that you have broken the law.

2. Every few years (I would make it 3) you apply to renew your registration. Again you pay a fee ($5-20). So long as you are not a convicted felon or on a list of mentally ill, your registration is automatically renewed.

3. Anytime you privately sell or transfer a firearm, you must contact the database with the name of the buyer. If the buyer is a convicted felon or mentally ill, the transfer is illegal. If not, it goes through automatically, but then the new owner must re-register the gun.

That's how I would handle it in a nutshell.

Sorry guys, this is my last post of the night, but I will return in the morning if all's well.

 

[ljnowell]

You ask what I want: to be specific, right now out of all the proposed new gun laws there is only a few that I'm SURE I'm in favor of: universal background checks, and a national database of all guns that exist in this country.

Timmy, a quick question, what do you think a national registry would do? To clarify, how do you feel a national registry would do anything to PREVENT shootings or crime?

 

[Solo]

I asked you before, and you didn't answer. I'm on;y asking again because I'm bored.

I frequently recreate in the deserts of Utah. I like to go out where I am unlikely to see anyone else, throw a rifle across the handlebars, and ride my 4-wheeler. Unfortunately, the price of illegal pot has made it worth it for Mexican drug cartels to harvest it in record-breaking amounts. It is so bad, they are now offering rewards, $1 per plant seized. There have been several busts in places where I have explored and hunted in my lifetime. Not could, hypothetically go one day, places I have BEEN. The guys who grow this stuff don't leave it, they babysit it, there's too much cash at stake, they can't afford to leave it unattended.

So, (again,) my question to you, is if I am out on a trail, I head up a canyon, and I run into something I wasn't supposed to see. I immediately turn around to leave, and there are three gentlemen in the trail who have a lot riding on what I just saw. Maybe something will happen. Maybe it won't. But IF IT DOES, ......how many bullets am I going to need? Five? Cuomo says I will need seven. How many do you think I need?

As unlikely as that sounds, Timmy4, it does happen. I have an acquaintance who works for the California EPA, and he has to go around inspecting less developed areas. On multiple occasions, he has wandered into pot fields and had guns shoved in his face - fortunately for him, law enforcement was always working with him, so they took care of the situations for him.

He now does his inspections with a kevlar vest and a shotgun in his truck.

 

[9MMare]

I don't own guns and don't plan on ever owning guns. Therefore, I would like to live in a society where I am protected by the police. If according to the law as it currently stands, I don't live in such a society right now, then I would like to change the law so that I do live in such a society.
.

You're not stupid and even you dont believe that.

IMO, what you do believe is that you'd prefer to play the odds that you and your family never need the police.

Nobody's stupid enough to think the cops can be there in time to save them in most crimes of opportunity.

 

[timmy4]

Well, one last post.

I know there are some very good questions here I did not answer. I will definitely try to do so in the morning.

I did not mean to complain about the moderators. You're correct, they HAVE been very accommodating.

Ms. Dragon, if it's tedious to you, then I respect that. Why bother responding?

Anyhow, good night all!

 

[Alaska444]

Originally Posted by timmy4
If 3 armed invaders broke into my home at night, I'm probably dead along with my entire family.

Am I absolutely sure this will never happen? Of course not? But I am reasonably sure this will never happen? I am. I don't think such an event has happened in decades in the city in which I live. This is one of the safest cities in the United States.

First of all, home defense is not just about guns. There are multiple layers to home security starting with lights, appropriate security gates on doors, window protection to prevent easy entry, barricades on bedroom doors, etc that slow the creeps down to allow the home owner access to their shotgun or gun of choice kept by the bedside.

Secondly, I have a 20 ga, actually two in my bedroom and I feel confident with one shot stops with my buckshot. That is a lot of lead flying at a bad guy trying to get in the bedroom. Our kids are grown, so it is easier for my to secure my house with my wife.

If you are going to be able to handle multiple attackers, the physical premises MUST be secured as well to give you the tactical advantage.

 

[9MMare]

Sure. Let me describe it.

1. At the time the database is set up, you would be required by law to inform the government of what firearms you own, along with serial numbers. Let's say there is a 90 day period for you to notify the govt, by phone, mail, internet, or at the post office. You will receive a registration paper for each firearm. There would be a small fee: anywhere from $5-20. After 90 days, any firearm that you are found with without registration, you are subject to a fine of $50, and if it happens twice in a year, you're subject to it being seized. HOWEVER, no police or government authority can search you for illegal firearms without a warrant based on the reasonable suspicion that you have broken the law.

2. Every few years (I would make it 3) you apply to renew your registration. Again you pay a fee ($5-20). So long as you are not a convicted felon or on a list of mentally ill, your registration is automatically renewed.

3. Anytime you privately sell or transfer a firearm, you must contact the database with the name of the buyer. If the buyer is a convicted felon or mentally ill, the transfer is illegal. If not, it goes through automatically, but then the new owner must re-register the gun.

That's how I would handle it in a nutshell.

Sorry guys, this is my last post of the night, but I will return in the morning if all's well.

Someone remind me...which other Constitutional Rights do we have to pay to exercise?

 

[Alaska444]

Sure. Let me describe it.

1. At the time the database is set up, you would be required by law to inform the government of what firearms you own, along with serial numbers. Let's say there is a 90 day period for you to notify the govt, by phone, mail, internet, or at the post office. You will receive a registration paper for each firearm. There would be a small fee: anywhere from $5-20. After 90 days, any firearm that you are found with without registration, you are subject to a fine of $50, and if it happens twice in a year, you're subject to it being seized. HOWEVER, no police or government authority can search you for illegal firearms without a warrant based on the reasonable suspicion that you have broken the law.

2. Every few years (I would make it 3) you apply to renew your registration. Again you pay a fee ($5-20). So long as you are not a convicted felon or on a list of mentally ill, your registration is automatically renewed.

3. Anytime you privately sell or transfer a firearm, you must contact the database with the name of the buyer. If the buyer is a convicted felon or mentally ill, the transfer is illegal. If not, it goes through automatically, but then the new owner must re-register the gun.

That's how I would handle it in a nutshell.

Sorry guys, this is my last post of the night, but I will return in the morning if all's well.

Sorry, you need to read the purposes of gun control and why they believe registration is so important. It is NOT so that they can improve gun safety Timmy4, it is so that they will no where to go to confiscate ALL of the guns when they see fit to do so.

That is why I and many here on THR oppose closing the so called gun show loophole which could only work with full gun registration. It is the first step to confiscation.

Sorry, your proposal as noted above is very flawed and unenforceable.

In addition, my friend, you should truly spend some time reading why the second amendment was included as the second of ten bill of rights. History is something we should all understand and tyranny is unfortunately a larger part of the world's history than free democracies. You dismiss our concerns about this, but the founding fathers did not. I would suggest reading through their documents and put that into context of the many comments folks have made quoting the founders views. Registration is the first step to confiscation and the liberal gun control folks have stated that openly, well at least to others of like thinking anyway.

 

[BHP FAN]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

 

[goon]

Again, I wonder if Timmy4 has ever lived in a place where the police can't respond quickly.

No offense to cops, but the world is not perfect and threats do exist - whether the closest cop is just across the street or clear on the other side of the county. And some of the western states have some damn big counties.

 

[mljdeckard]

The police don't protect you. The police not only have no legal duty to protect you as an individual, they are greatly restricted from working proactively. The police REACT to crimes. The police are armed historians. They come AFTER a crime has happened. They are great at writing down details and reading autopsy reports.

Every time you see a cop for the next week, ask yourself; "If I called the police from my house right now, how long would it take them to get there, and when they DO get there, will they react quickly enough to stop someone trying to harm me?"

The national average is nine minutes. So, how many ten-round magazines can a bad guy go through in nine minutes. I know from real life experience, I can burn through 210 rounds in an M-16 on semi-auto in just over one minute. Restrict me to ten round magazines, it's still less than a minute and a half. (But the bad guys won't be using restricted magazines.) What are the police going to do for you?

 

[Solo]

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guards against unreasonable search and seizure. In practice, it only serves to protect the criminals among us; no honest citizen needs privacy from the government. Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from the public security organs of the State. We would be much safer if the police were not held up by legal nonsense such as warrants and probable cause, for they would then be able to apprehend criminals with greater efficiency and make us all safer. This is especially important now during the War on Terror, where terrorists live amongst us, who can - and have - brought death and destruction upon our people.

We need common-sense restrictions on the Fourth Amendment in order to ensure our safety as a people. The Founding Fathers could never have foreseen the destructive power the drug cartels in Mexico who ship their violence over our borders along with their poisonous drugs, or of modern terrorists and the geopolitical struggle America now finds itself in. We must adapt our laws and values in order to guarantee our security and well-being as a nation.

 

[Alaska444]

I'm no lawyer, and not too familiar. I note that it was a 4-3 decision. My initial response is that I don't think I agree with it.

I don't own guns and don't plan on ever owning guns. Therefore, I would like to live in a society where I am protected by the police. If according to the law as it currently stands, I don't live in such a society right now, then I would like to change the law so that I do live in such a society.

Beyond that, if your implication is that this ruling gives added rights to gun-owners by default, that's something we can debate further.

Dear Timmy4, you need to take a grasp at the above post and understand that the police have NO DUTY to protect you. In fact, when seconds count, police are minutes away.

If you wish to abrogate your God given right to self defense, so be it. But don't ask us to give up that right just to make you feel cozy in your utopian society that shall never exist. Come down from the clouds my friend and understand the reality of what we face in this nation.

The police have NO DUTY to protect. Shouldn't that send you a message to consider?

 

[jakk280rem]

1. At the time the database is set up, you would be required by law to inform the government of what firearms you own, along with serial numbers. Let's say there is a 90 day period for you to notify the govt, by phone, mail, internet, or at the post office. You will receive a registration paper for each firearm. There would be a small fee: anywhere from $5-20. After 90 days, any firearm that you are found with without registration, you are subject to a fine of $50, and if it happens twice in a year, you're subject to it being seized. HOWEVER, no police or government authority can search you for illegal firearms without a warrant based on the reasonable suspicion that you have broken the law.*

2. Every few years (I would make it 3) you apply to renew your registration. Again you pay a fee ($5-20). So long as you are not a convicted felon or on a list of mentally ill, your registration is automatically renewed.*

3. Anytime you privately sell or transfer a firearm, you must contact the database with the name of the buyer. If the buyer is a convicted felon or mentally ill, the transfer is illegal. If not, it goes through automatically, but then the new owner must re-register the gun.*

what you just described is not a registry, it's a permitting process. i must ask for and receive a licence for each gun or it is seized.

$20 per gun every 3 years huh? didn't one of the Midwest states' supreme court rule that a right cannot be taxed in order to exercise it. i believe the case revolved around requiring a drivers license to vote. i'm not even close to being a lawyer, don't play one on t.v. and didn't stay in a holiday inn express last night, but i know that what you are suggesting would be highly actionable in a court of law. Also i believe it could be called an undue restriction to exercise ones second amendment rights. i have trouble affording ammo and new guns, hundreds of dollars in new taxes would be hard to swallow. and i'm not poor. much.

 

[Bobson]

Deleted.

I haven't seen Judge Dredd.

 

[Solo]

You may want to consider the picture at the bottom of my post.

 

[JShirley]

1. Anyone who has questions for THR staff, if he does not want to private message an individual moderator or administrator, should post such questions in the Tech Support forum.

2.

I would like to live in a society where I am protected by the police.

Well, that's a lovely idea. I want a pony, free love, and a million dollars. These things, however, are neither rights nor reasonable to expect. The Supreme Court has held that police have no obligation to protect citizens, but only to respond after crimes have been committed, and since anyone willing to invest 2 seconds' thought will realize it's impossible to be protected from all crimes before they are committed, the US of A is obviously not for you. (Neither is any other country, but hey, good luck looking.)

Now, I do genuinely appreciate how polite you've been, sir, but that in fact obviously does not make you amenable to reason. That clearly leaves only two explanations:

1. You are not in fact swayable by reason;

2. You are trolling.

In either case, you seem to be wasting our time, so "sir" (?), I ask you plainly: why are you here?

Respectfully,

John

 

[mljdeckard]

(Solo was in fact speaking with sarcasm. Apparently he's too dry for some people.

 

[Smokin Gator]

"I don't own guns and don't plan on ever owning guns. Therefore, I would like to live in a society where I am protected by the police. If according to the law as it currently stands, I don't live in such a society right now, then I would like to change the law so that I do live in such a society".

I don't know you or your family. You are perfectly free to decide that they are not worth defending should the situation arise. My family is worth defending and I'll do my best to do it. Mark

 

[Alaska444]

1. Anyone who has questions for THR staff, if he does not want to private message an individual moderator or administrator, should post such questions in the Tech Support forum.

2.

Well, that's a lovely idea. I want a pony, free love, and a million dollars. These things, however, are neither rights nor reasonable to expect. The Supreme Court has held that police have no obligation to protect citizens, but only to respond after crimes have been committed, and since anyone willing to invest 2 seconds' thought will realize it's impossible to be protected from all crimes before they are committed, the US of A is obviously not for you. (Neither is any other country, but hey, good luck looking.)

Now, I do genuinely appreciate how polite you've been, sir, but that in fact obviously does not make you amenable to reason. That clearly leaves only two explanations:

1. You are not in fact swayable by reason;

2. You are trolling.

In either case, you seem to be wasting our time, so "sir" (?), I ask you plainly: why are you here?

Respectfully,

John

Thank you.

 

[blarby]

2. You are trolling.

I came to this conclusion on the last thread.

I have yet to see anything that indicates otherwise.

 

[goon]

Jshirley - exactly. Even if somehow a law making police responsible for protecting us from others and ourselves was passed tomorrow, Supreme Court precedent stands against it. That is not an easy thing to have changed - in fact, it may be next to impossible to get changed.

And it's physically impossible for anyone to offer that level of protection without giving up too much privacy and freedom. If it could be done, I would still vote against it.

I mean no offense to Timmy4, but I just don't think he is living in the real world. I hope his neighborhood continues to stay unbelievably safe, because if it doesn't, I fear he would be unable to handle it.

 

[Solo]

Fear not, Orange County is very safe. I officially reside there myself, and have for the past 9 years... although 4 of those were spent in Virginia and 1 in Riverside.