David Spade Donates $100K to Phoenix PD for AR-15s

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by CWL, Dec 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Borch

    Borch Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    First, WHAT!? REALLY!? WOW!

    Second, WHAT!? REALLY!? Do you really think there is any responsible gun owner that wouldn't realize one of his/her guns is missing in a timely manner? Anyone who doesn't report a gun stolen has a reason for not doing so, and anyone who claims ignorance to the theft of a firearm of all things is probably a liar. I know of no gun owner that isn't in and out of his/her collection at least once every couple of days for whatever reason, range time, cleaning/maintenance, photos for a website, etc, etc, etc. So for you to actually believe that a responsible gun owner would not notice a missing firearm in his/her collection is simply asynine.

    Now I realize the key word here is responsible and that there are gun owners who bought a gun for "protetcion" fired a few times cleaned it and stuffed under their mattress never to look at it again. But even in that situation the missing weapon is probably going to be noticed in a reasonable amount of time simply through the changing of sheets.

    Those of you who think the cops are out there searching for ways to infringe on your rights when it comes to anything and everything need to wake up to the state of the world because that is not what's going on. Ever expanding populations, patrol areas, and responsibilities combined with ever shrinking budgets, police forces and the current "do more with less" state of thinking have turned police officers into glorified first responders. Long gone are the days of putting a cop in a certain area of town on a semi permanent basis and telling him to learn the neighborhood and it's people and places. Long gone are the practices of effective neighborhood/community policing. Police are out on the street doing nothing more than repsonding to calls for assistance from the public 99% of the time. And working in corrections at the county level I see what those calls are and a good many of them are BS but the cops are duty bound to check them all out.

    So with all that being said whose really trampling your rights? JOhn Q. Public that's who. A cop driving a squad car sees a well dressed guy/girl carrying a high dollar dollar weapon in a quality holster and the first thing that comes to his mind is not criminal with an illegal weapon. The first thought is lawful carrier exercising their right. John Q. Public sees the same guy/girl with the same clothes and the same gun and holster and their first thought is not lawful carrier exercising their right it's, holy crap, that guys got a gun, I better call the cops. So the responding officer who sees the situation for what it is when he arrives (in response to a call from John Q. Public) is now duty bound to stop you, question you and even possibly disarm you until proper credentials have been verified. Not that the officer wants to do this but John Q. Public with the cell phone that made the original complaint is probably hiding somewhere waiting to watch/videotape you getting arrested so he can go home and put it on Youtube.

    And to those of you who know the laws and how the laws relate to your rights better than cops or lawyers I simply say, you are more than likely wrong and you probably have an opinion of yourself that is far too high. Cops and lawyers definately don't know all the laws but they know how to read and interpret them, which believe me is not easy, and they are kept current on new supreme court interpretations of the laws. So unless you've read and memorized all the local, state and federal laws, regulations and ordinances and kept up on all supreme court decisions 9not just the big ones), both state and federal, and how they effect those laws, regulations and ordinances you should probably sit back and relax and leave the LAWE and attorney work to someone who really knows whats going on.
  2. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Contributing Member

    Jan 21, 2004
    Norra Texas
    Mandatory training for firearms ownership requires instructor time. Either you force instructors to provide it for free, or increase taxes across the board to help the .gov defray the individual cost they have imposed upon this Constitutional right, or you have just instituted a policy that discriminates against poor people and denies those who are 'economically disadvantaged' the ability to exercise their constitutional right.

    Mandatory training is just another 'common sense' approach that fails the light of critical analysis.

    And you guys do realize you have completely hijacked this thread, no?
  3. Mohawk

    Mohawk Member

    Dec 13, 2008
    Cornville, AZ
    I live in a fairly small town of 11,000. Whenever I hike out in the desert I take a walking stick and a Ruger P90 with 2 snake loads and the rest hollowpoint. I open carry the Ruger. Whenever we do cattle round ups and travel the desert on horseback we all carry sidearms, open carry. Sometimes we park our horses out front and go to Ruby's for lunch and we all walk in with our sidearms. Never been a problem. Ruby knows the score. But by the same token whenever I go into town at Safeway or high population areas, I always CCW. I make allowances forpeople's sensibilities. A mother with her kids in a resturant most likely will feel very uncomfortable with your six shooter staring back at her. She, along with the 68% of the general population who dissaprove of guns in general will not like it. The LEO who has to respond to the call "Man with a gun" is gonna have a pucker factor even before he gets to the scene. Are you gonna argue chapter and verse to convince her of your right? I don't think so.

    I don't think this thread has been hijacked either. Sooner or later every thread ever posted on every gun site on the internet reverts to the two factions in the gun owning community. Those who carry guns responsibly and use common sense and those who feel they must exercise every aspect concerning gun rights all the time claiming that it's everybody else's problem rather than their's.
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2009
  4. DesertPunisher425

    DesertPunisher425 Member

    Dec 30, 2008
    Um... yes. And data would confirm the drivers training that most drivers go through do increase safety on the public roadways. Also, many states do not allow persons who aren't citizens or here on a visa to obtain licenses. You also have to take a basic test in most states to obtain a license.

    No, I don't work for obama... no I don't .50's outlawed, no I don't want a 10rd restriction (you must have missed this point in my previous post). None of this is common sense. All if it is limiting what personal use firearms you can own (this doesn't mean I feel you should be able to go buy a functional M777 155mm howitzer...). Pass a law that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of realization they are missing? Sure... why not? THAT IS COMMON SENSE... something is stolen, you report it. Something that once stolen is VERY likely to cause harm to others... even more important you report it.

    I didn't say license someone to own a gun. I said require mandatory safety training when someone gets their first gun. Loaning? How often have you loaned a gun to someone who doesn't have one at all? If and when that happens, don't you usually tell them everything you've learned about safe handling and how to use it? Or do you just hand it to them and say "have fun"... and let them figure it out... Much like a gun store does? The owner is the one that needs to be informed of safe handling and usage; someone can't pass on information they don't have when loaning something out.

    Again, I didn't see you raise any objections to the mandatory training and often times licensing for....
    -Concealed Carry
    -Captaining a boat for hire
    -Driving a Commercial truck/vehicle
    -Piloting an aircraft

    You may very well feel that the roads would be every bit as safe today as they would be if no licensing and training were required for automobile and commercial truck operation... but accident percentage statistics from when training and licensing were MUCH MUCH more loose compared to today would entirely contradict you. In virtually every instance that requirements for safety training have been instituted, injuries and fatal accidents have decreased. I'm not sure you fully understand that your arguments against training and licensing are promoting recklessness and a heightened risk of safety to others in just about everything we do on a daily basis.
  5. DesertPunisher425

    DesertPunisher425 Member

    Dec 30, 2008
    So you're saying that some sort of cost for a mandatory safety training program is denying people their right to own a firearm? Much like required safety training for hunt is denying people the ability to hunt? That's ridiculous. In my state, a two day CPL class runs around $100-$130; wrapped up in that is the required attorney's fees. Take the attorney out and it's down to $60-$90/person. Make it a total training time of 5-6 hours (to include range time) instead of 16-20 hours of training and you should easily be able to get the per-person cost down to a reasonable range of $30 +/- $10. Run it the same way many states run hunter's safety... Issue a certificate or card verifying completion of the class.

    I can't even comprehend that people are actually arguing against training for safe firearm handling. Am I the only one that sees people who have used guns for years in gun stores, pointing guns at people with their finger on the trigger and not even realizing what they are doing is grossly unsafe?

    Below are two very good examples of my point on open carry...
  6. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Nov 28, 2006
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    That's exactly what he's saying.

    None of those are enumerated rights in the constitution, with the possible exception of carrying a concealed firearm. And I'm all for abolishing CCW licenses and permits, and having all 50 states establish Vermont style carry law.

    For your information, owning a 155mm howitzer in fully working order would be perfectly legal, with a $200 NFA tax stamp, as-is. I don't see maniacs with field pieces shelling cities from their rural back yards, do you?

    I have to call you on this. How is it possible to have looser requirements than what they are now? All they do is put you in a car, have you parallel park, and then drive around the block and back. If you don't hit anything, you get your license.

    Too bad, I'm not an entertainer or a politician. People don't have the right to feel comfortable in public. I do have the right to not only carry a gun, but also to not hide it. It's not an obscene object or an obscene act to carry it. If a soccer mom thinks otherwise, it's her problem for not reading the constitution (both State and Federal).

    For the record, I'm not against education and training. I'm against government mandated and instituted education and training. The government simply cannot be trusted with such an endeavor, as can be noted by looking at our public schools currently. I value education just a bit more than that.

    edit; as for the "common sense" stolen firearms reporting law you tout, what's so common sense about it? What does it accomplish, other than punishing victims of theft?
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2009
  7. DesertPunisher425

    DesertPunisher425 Member

    Dec 30, 2008
    To change things up, I'll go from the bottom up...

    How is this punishing victims of theft? What it is doing is, #1 allowing the police the earliest opportunity to investigate the theft and hopefully apprehend the perpetrator BEFORE your gun is used in a violent crime. #2, making an official record of your firearm being missing... so WHEN (not if) it's used in a violent crime, the authorities are aware that it was not in your possession. Again, this is common sense... and anyone who either fails to report, or purposefully does not report a stolen firearm is an irresponsible idiot.

    You're arguing that all education should be free from government over-site, left in the hands of the community and family members; at least that's what I'm getting out of your replies. Do you also feel that women shouldn't be allowed to attend school? Kids who's parents own a farm drop out in 4th or 5th grade and work on the farm? Our public schools took a decisive step forward when the government set requirements for educational goals and mandatory ages for attending school. To remove government over-site would be a major step backwards. That's not to say there is no room for improvement, but if you think that's possible without laws being enacted, you have a very good imagination.

    I'm not really sure what being an entertainer or politician has to do with open carry... but that irrelevant statement aside, you must keep in mind that whole "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing. When someone does something that is very much out of the ordinary, which frightens people... you're impeding upon their pursuit of happiness. Open carry is far from common place in populated cities and people doing so puts fear into a pretty sizable number of those who they come into contact with. Is it right that somehow two rights have now become contradictory to each other? No it's not... but it is a fact of life. It could be argued that it is a person's right to have relations with person's of the same gender... do you feel it's okay that two guys exercise that right 5 feet from you by putting their tongues down each other's throat and having their hands down each others pants? It's their right as outlined in the constitution... But it makes most people uncomfortable (same gender or not)... and there for, it's been mandated that such acts must be conducted in private. Hate to break it to you, but you carrying a pistol in the open is offensive to most of the population. The second amendment doesn't state that your right is to openly carry; basically it only says it's your right to carry (to "bear arms" means to "bring arms"... meaning carry; doesn't say openly or concealed).

    How old are you? 16? (sarcasm) There was a point in time where no licensing, training or testing was required to drive.
    In most states, to get your license below the age of 18, you must attend a course in driver's training (some states require it no matter the age); in almost all states you must pass a written test, vision test and road test. Most states also require you to be a legal resident. Do you honestly believe everyone who tries to get a license gets one? I spent some time in Germany... about 60% of the autobahn does not technically have a speed limit (although going above 120km/hr usually voids your insurance in case of an accident). Interestingly enough accidents and deaths on the roads of Germany are measurably less per-capita of drivers than here in the US (and Germany has no open container laws...). Why? Because unlike here in the states where driver's training isn't a requirement for everyone; it is in Germany. Having drove in Europe for over two years, they are MUCH better drivers... because their GOVERNMENT sets higher standards. If the Government doesn't set higher standards, who does?

    I assume you're under the impression that getting an NFA tax stamp is as easy as going to the post office and buying a postage stamp? Again... you're showing examples of governmental regulations that DO NOT prohibit law abiding citizens from owning these devices, but help filter out the undesirables.

    So since none of these are rights... you'd be more than happy to have the government ban you from participating in all of them? Rights are not without restriction and regulation; never have, never will be. It's the fact of life in the United States. And furthermore, as the recent supreme court decision stated:
    -"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
    -"...should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

    -Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia
    District of Columbia v. Heller
    June 26th 2008

    I think the key aspect you need to think about here is "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms". In other words, so long as a law is not unreasonably restricting your right to arms, it is not illegal. Having to register, license or attend safety training, as per the supreme court... is not limiting your rights as outlined via the 2nd amendment. You can still own the gun...

    All of that said and done, the supreme court's ruling defined the rights granted through the 2nd amendment as well as the limitations to those rights. Everything I've debated here as so far as regulations and requirements are well within the confines of the 2nd amendment as defined by the supreme court. To be blunt... your opinion is irrelevant.

    This has been an enjoyable debate, but I'll have to bow out from this particular aspect of this thread as I believe nothing new of any significance will come into play and it is there for not worth continuing. If you feel the need for the last word, be my guest. I'll read it but won't respond, and if anyone else posts something interesting more in-line with the thread topic, I may chime back in. Until then, Happy New Year!
  8. XavierBreath

    XavierBreath Member

    Jan 6, 2003
    How about we just close this train wreck about a moment before it hits the bottom of the crevasse it has careened off into?

    Happy New Year.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice