Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
Molon Labe!
Expiration Of Ban Pushes Police To Get Assault Rifles
- Thread starter gunsmith
- Start date
- Status
Molon Labe!
CentralTexas
Member
Easy fix
just pass laws against criminals having guns.
just pass laws against criminals having guns.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
The reasoning here is just as fallacious as the assault weapons in the hands of crooks. Please show me where the police are having an increasing problems with body armor? Please tell me exactly how my life is not equivalent to a police officer's life in regard to my being protected by body armor if I so desire?
The way to handle BG's is through changing the statutes regarding the use of lethal force and bad guys. Then work on changing cultural bias against personal responsibility and self defense. If you adjust things so that bad guys don't have much chance of survival...well, things will be exciting for a while. Then, the bad guys' apprentices will see what happens to their mentors. It will make them change majors. Everybody's always wanting to make laws controlling innocuous tools. Go to the root of the problem. Terrorist crossing the borders? Increasing border security might help some.
Disrupting the terrorist organizations by killing the majority of their members and applying pressure to make the survivors live like hunted animals will help much more. It's hard to commit crime or terrorism when you're dead.
Hkmp5sd
Member
This is like saying the end of the 55 MPH speed limit pushed Police to get turbo-charged cruisers.
Deavis
Member
So, I knowthe no guns part is correct, but I'm not sure about the last part. Playboy interviewed 50 Cent, who is a convicted felon, and highlighted the fact that he wore body armor constantly. I thought it was illegal to possess body armor if you were a felon, so I searched through Texas and California law and couldn't find anything forbidding a felon from owning and wearing body armor. In both states the possession of armor during a crime was against the law but not merely being a felon in possession of it. Does anyone have any links that say yes/nay at the state or federal level? I'd like to know.
LiquidTension
Member
Hey, at least they're required to have some training. That makes me feel a little better in the face of the fact that police hit innocent bystanders far more often than civilians do (11% to 2% if I remember correctly). The figures are somewhere in the gunfacts.info pdf file.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
From today's NRA-ILA ....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/44/sections/section_931.html
18USC931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons.
Now maybe 50 Cent's felony doesn't meet the statute. Maybe 50 Cent, Playboy, or both, are full of **** regarding his convictions, actual possession of body armor, or both. I don't know.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Actually, it was that Kerry creature's defeat that have pushed more than 100 St. Petersburg...
Wait. No. That's not right.
It was the rising cost of gasoline and heating oil. Yeah. That's it. They both occurred at the same time, didn't they? That's causality, isn't it?
Deavis
Member
Thanks for the link DMF. I bet his employer, read record label, authorized the possession of body armor for his safe performance. Sounds like the right way to get around it. It is very well documented that he wears body armor in more than one media outlet. Just Google "50 Cent bullet proof vest" Anyhow, question asked, question answered.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
You know, it's strange how most of us gun folks are all het up about the GCA of 68...except felons prohibited from owning guns. What's that old proverb about whose ox is gored?
Personally, I wish that we didn't have a violent felon in prison in the country...because their would be victims killed them on the spot. Barring that-a person whom I will not trust to own weapons and body armor is a person whom I will not trust to walk down the street.
Remember something folks, if chewing gum is a felony in a foreign country-and you get convicted there of chewing gum...guess what? This prohibition is a damned dangerous tool to leave in the hands of our enemies. It has already been used against us...appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Our side lost.
A policeman's life is no more important than mine or yours...all of lives are important and we all have the same right to protect our lives. Thus we have the right to own the same protective tools.
Oh, yeah, the danger job exemption thingie
I worked collections and repossession for 15 years. Including a neigborhood where an employee had been shot three times. I had a good many confrontations, came real close to using my gun a couple of times, I did use a slapjack a couple of times. But as far as injuries go...I was assaulted with injuries more in college-on campus. This is just one more example of an idiot (otherwise known as a legislator) desperately trying to come up with something-anything to justify his total uselessness and incompetence.
If a legislator wants to truly reduce violent crime then his bill will penalize violent criminals not law abiding citizens who possess some inaminate object.
If you see a law that liberalizes the parameters of the use of lethal force that constitutes self defense then that legislator is trying to reduce violent crime.
If he increases the penalities for violent crimes then he is trying to reduce violent crime. If he tries to pass statutes that limit what you can own or do when you have not tried to harm anyone of God's green earth...he ain't trying to control violent crime nor is he trying to protect the police. He is trying to control you for some reason. Pure and simple. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Personally, I wish that we didn't have a violent felon in prison in the country...because their would be victims killed them on the spot. Barring that-a person whom I will not trust to own weapons and body armor is a person whom I will not trust to walk down the street.
Remember something folks, if chewing gum is a felony in a foreign country-and you get convicted there of chewing gum...guess what? This prohibition is a damned dangerous tool to leave in the hands of our enemies. It has already been used against us...appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Our side lost.
A policeman's life is no more important than mine or yours...all of lives are important and we all have the same right to protect our lives. Thus we have the right to own the same protective tools.
Oh, yeah, the danger job exemption thingie
I worked collections and repossession for 15 years. Including a neigborhood where an employee had been shot three times. I had a good many confrontations, came real close to using my gun a couple of times, I did use a slapjack a couple of times. But as far as injuries go...I was assaulted with injuries more in college-on campus. This is just one more example of an idiot (otherwise known as a legislator) desperately trying to come up with something-anything to justify his total uselessness and incompetence. If a legislator wants to truly reduce violent crime then his bill will penalize violent criminals not law abiding citizens who possess some inaminate object.
If you see a law that liberalizes the parameters of the use of lethal force that constitutes self defense then that legislator is trying to reduce violent crime.
If he increases the penalities for violent crimes then he is trying to reduce violent crime. If he tries to pass statutes that limit what you can own or do when you have not tried to harm anyone of God's green earth...he ain't trying to control violent crime nor is he trying to protect the police. He is trying to control you for some reason. Pure and simple. Wake up and smell the coffee!
fjolnirsson
Member
Byron, my friend, you're talking to a wall here. I've been round and round with this, here as well as other forums. For some reason, the majority of folks just don't see it that way. Apparently people are ok with a second , lower class of citizens. It seems most are also willing to take the risk of becoming one.
Aw, what do I know. I'm cranky tonight because my in-laws tire got slashed in front of my house last night. Nevermind.
The_Antibubba
Member
I'm sure a prohibition on felons getting body armor will be as effective as the one that prevents them from getting guns.
VARifleman
Member
Byron, I agree completely. As I've said to others, while some people probably shouldn't own guns, trying to restrict those people from having guns will likely lead to infringements on the rights of the law abiding citizens. Those law abiding citizens, in an effort to protect themselves and family, choose to go to the black market. They are then not law abiding citizens anymore, but criminals. What was it that Regan said? Something along the lines of 'No one should ever be punished for defending themselves or family'? Now those folks that had a lawful reason to own a gun (ie not going to commit a crime with it) went the illegal path because of all the BS red tape that is present. I fully believe that the damage caused by the violent people that we all know probably shouldn't own guns, would be much less than the damage caused through the above likely scenario.
Zach S
Member
I have problems with felons owning guns. Most corrections officers arent allowed to carry them while at work, arming the inmates would just be stupid.
Oh yeah, I forgot theres no such classification as ex-felon. They're ex-cons, but still felons...
IIRC 50 cent's felony is drug-related, not violent, which put him in the clear for body armor.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
So what? Sarah Brady has a problem with you owning a gun.
Zach S
Member
Did you even bother to read the whole post?
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
If you were being facetious about incarcerated felons owning weapons, then my bad.
If "your" side lost then you must favor foreign convictions being applied to the GCA prohibition on convicted felons.
Small v. US, 03-750 (2005)
VARifleman
Member
Where the heck did you get that we would be arming the inmates!? 
:banghead: :banghead:
We're talking the people that have served their time here. NOT while their still in prison.
Do you realize what kinds of absolutely stupid things can get you a felony conviction these days? 2 illegal possession of alcohol convictions, causing an injury (NO MATTER HOW SMALL) in an alcohol related accident, in some states, speaking your mind about sensitive topics, many of those felons who have had their rights stripped were just simply screwed by stupid laws.
Has everyone read either The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton E. Cramer or at least the JPFO report "GCA '68: What Your Politician Never Told You"? If not...read them. You'll be horrified by what you learn.
:banghead: :banghead: We're talking the people that have served their time here. NOT while their still in prison.
Do you realize what kinds of absolutely stupid things can get you a felony conviction these days? 2 illegal possession of alcohol convictions, causing an injury (NO MATTER HOW SMALL) in an alcohol related accident, in some states, speaking your mind about sensitive topics, many of those felons who have had their rights stripped were just simply screwed by stupid laws.
Has everyone read either The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton E. Cramer or at least the JPFO report "GCA '68: What Your Politician Never Told You"? If not...read them. You'll be horrified by what you learn.
Jay Kominek
Member
That seems to have changed today.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-750.ZS.html
(Oops. Hadn't noticed DMF had already posted this.)
- Status
Similar threads
