Gun owner database already being used for confiscation in CA

Status
Not open for further replies.
And if it's okay with him, I'll sign on to 9mmepiphany's response. The bottom line is that the vast majority of folks manage to get through their lives without committing crimes, let alone serious or violent crimes.

Certainly self control and wise choices hugely impact the likelihood of getting into trouble but circumstances and luck can play a roll as well. I heard recently that by age 40 nearly 80% of black males have been arrested at least once.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
Vector said:
...Assuming you went to college, have had different jobs, attended family gatherings, have had idiot neighbors, gone to sporting events with alcohol, to nightclubs etc., I'd assume you would have encountered some of the possible scenarios I've mentioned.

Then again maybe you live in Bel Aire, attended Stanford, have never had jerk co-workers, all your relatives have great manners, etc...
Zoogster said:
...Plenty of people do deal with people that will only get worse if you avoid all confrontation.
Doing some blue collar work at various times I have certainly seen a crowd that has no respect for passive individuals. People that avoid all confrontation will become a target of theft and other things....
Nonetheless we are all expected to deal, without committing criminal assault, with the various frictions and minor affronts each of faces living among other humans. And indeed most people do. And I can't say that I'm very troubled by some folks not having ready access to guns after they have demonstrated through the criminal justice system that they can't.
 
Ever been in a fight? Ever been falsely accused in a civil or criminal matter? Ever made a paperwork error? The constantly expanding grounds for becoming a" prohibited person" combined with a push for UBC's( effectively a ban on private FTF sales) could lead many advocates for UBCs to realize they screwed up.
I work as an armed security officer at the FAA.I hold redundant state licensing backstopped by federal( triplicate) clearances.I work for a veteran owned firm that hires the same.And guess what? I get denied on FFL transactions by the same state police administration that issues my armed security license. This in turn has the NICS examiners stating in conference calls with my attorney (08/21/12) that they are aware of my contradictory statuses, but so far no action...and this has dragged on since 2010.
I said it before- NICS is a lie.If you're not to be trusted with all civil rights, you shouldn't be walking around outside the wire.
Stop considering it( UBC, NICS etc) anything but what it is: piecemeal infringement and loss of the RKBA.
 
Nonetheless we are all expected to deal, without committing criminal assault, with the various frictions and minor affronts each of faces living among other humans. And indeed most people do. And I can't say that I'm very troubled by some folks not having ready access to guns after they have demonstrated through the criminal justice system that they can't.

I would be pretty surprised if less than half the male population had NEVER technically commited assault. Most of these situations never involve the police but would you really be comfortable with permanently taking away a constitutional right from anything close to that fraction of the population?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
nazshooter said:
I would be pretty surprised if less than half the male population had NEVER technically commited assault. Most of these situations never involve the police but would you really be comfortable with permanently taking away a constitutional right from anything close to that fraction of the population?
Phooey! I have no reason to believe your numbers.
 
Phooey! I have no reason to believe your numbers.

So would you be comfortable with permanently taking away a fundamental right from even half that number? Personally I think that's something that can only be justified under the most dire of circumstances.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
I would be pretty surprised if less than half the male population had NEVER technically commited assault. Most of these situations never involve the police but would you really be comfortable with permanently taking away a constitutional right from anything close to that fraction of the population?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
I'd ask you the same question I presented in Post #63

There is a huge difference in committing an Assault and being convicted of an illegal assault. I would be highly surprised it the number were greater than a small fraction of 1%. In 28 years of dealing with the Court system, the Correctional system and in LE, I've never seen or met anyone convicted solely of PC 240
 
I'd ask you the same question I presented in Post #63

There is a huge difference in committing an Assault and being convicted of an illegal assault. I would be highly surprised it the number were greater than a small fraction of 1%. In 28 years of dealing with the Court system, the Correctional system and in LE, I've never seen or met anyone convicted solely of PC 240

I don't think the fact that most are not caught/convicted really strengthens the moral case for permanent removal of a fundamental right. If anything it just makes the law seem more arbitrary. I would also add that the sorts of people most likely to be involved in these crimes are also more likely to live in a place where self defense is important to their survival.


Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
nazshooter said:
I don't think the fact that most are not caught/convicted really strengthens the moral case for permanent removal of a fundamental right
It isn't meant to.

It weakens the case for the argument that that right can be removed for what you have said is such a common crime. If no one is ever convicted of it, what difference does it make how common it is?

I would also add that the sorts of people most likely to be involved in these crimes are also more likely to live in a place where self defense is important to their survival.
Self-defense isn't an affirmative defense for simple assault (PC 240)
 
It isn't meant to.

It weakens the case for the argument that that right can be removed for what you have said is such a common crime. If no one is ever convicted of it, what difference does it make how common it is?

Serious penalties for minor crimes which are rarely or selectively enforced encourage corruption and discourage respect for the law.

Self-defense isn't an affirmative defense for simple assault (PC 240)

What I was trying to point out is that many of the people convicted of a crime that would get their 2a rights taken away live in places where they really do need a gun for self protection. As a result they have to choose between risking their lives and remaining a criminal by keeping a gun illegally.


Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
Please don't profane my Saviour's name.

To answer your question, I have not had a physical confrontation with anyone since about age 18. I had a guy pull a knife on me at that time. About 6 months ago, a homeless person did approach me outside our church where I was alone and I had to take a defensive posture and he went away cursing me when I told him I can't help you, but I did hold my ground. That is the only incident in 36 years and all I had to do was to hold my ground. During that 36 years, one of my passions was preaching to maximum security prisoners at a CA facility with a whole bunch of LWOPS. (Life without possibility of parole) Encountering dangerous people, how you respond to them almost always determines the outcome of the encounter.

I am now 54 with no further such encounters. One of my friends is an 8th degree black belt and in the Karate Hall of Fame. Guess what, he has NEVER had to use his knowledge in a self defense situation although one of these days he may take my tongue in cheek challenge to step outside seriously.:what::what: He told me that the closest he ever got to a fight was once. He is now 65 and has been a black belt since his mid 30's.

Not sure what point you are trying to make, but shucks folks can actually make it through each day without getting into an altercation that could turn physical. As they say, it takes two to tango. If you find yourself in frequent situations that could lead to an altercation, perhaps you should consider NOT carrying a sidearm since your past history will be used against you in a court of law. BTW, I have lived a very full life thank you in and out of large cities and 9 years spent in the military.

Well let me start out by saying your right. I meant no disrespect or blasphemy as he is my Savior as well. That said, just like you may be more religious or strictly adhere to your denominations teachings, your perspective is much different than some other Christians. Other aspects of life also have very divergent points of view.

Now on to the bigger picture, I do find it hard to believe people such as yourself are representative of the majority of people in our country. Even friends who live in rural America can still get into scuffles, sometimes with friends. After it is over they dust themselves off and have a beer together. Then of course there are those who come from a more urban area. Even though you lived in a big city, maybe yours was much more civil, educated, less ethnic, place.
My guess would be that people living in places like Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle, etc., might not experience the same problems as those in Detroit, Chicago, Miami, Los Angles, etc.

While I have an A type personality, I do not go looking for trouble. Then again I will not shy away from it in the situations I mentioned either. I doubt you or your karate buddy would stand by while a guy got physical with a woman, but you tell me?

As to carrying a firearm, I have done so, and not even thought about it during most situations because it was not life and death. Aside from my size, I can handle myself pretty well, so if it comes to a fight, I am not looking to use a firearm.
Now one night many years ago I was with a girl in a park and three guys were making a bead right for us. They were staring right at us and not looking away despite me staring back at them. Before they got too close I yelled out and said to go away. They did not stop coming toward us, so I upholstered my gun, and made sure they could see it as I pointed it to the ground. They stopped in their tracks, and headed in a different direction. There was no need to draw down on them, and we got out of there ASAP. So even at a younger age, I certainly could tell the difference when a firearm may be needed vs. a one on one verbal altercation that could turn physical.

Lastly, the point I am making is that I do not want violent/career criminals to own firearms. However if the state decides to start lowering the threshold of what constitutes a lifetime restriction on your Constitutional right to bear arms, then I will be more vocal in my opposition. Like I said, this is new territory for me being a law & order guy, but the CNN report I posted got me thinking.


You offer this, as if it isn't something to aspire to. I do indeed expect my daughter to attend Stanford and my son is attending an equivalent college in his field (no, he hasn't had any violent encounters either)

My experience has been somewhat similar to that of Alaska444. I'm 59 and I can't even remember the last confrontation I've had, in my personal life, where calm did not sooth flaring tempers...I'm not talking about staying calm, but actually having inner calm, likely much like his Karate friend.

I wouldn't call you obtuse, since it isn't constructive, but perhaps you should look within yourself to see where these issues are rooted

Maybe we are speaking different languages or something. I never implied that people should not aspire to clean living and having the best/safest lives possible. However not everyone is able to live the dream of Beverly Hills/Stanford/business owner, etc.
As someone pointed out, blacks for example have a very different life experience in general, so their lives might involve more troubled situations.

I have gone out of my way to say I am not getting personal with you, and wondering if you were being obtuse does not change that. I am certainly not being obtuse, but listening to some of you saying you are one with nature and your fellow man, with nary a dirty look in your entire lives is hard to believe.
I know a decent amount of people who live law abiding lives, yet encounter problems with others from time to time. Maybe it is just where I live that creates more situations for trouble among the populace. It certainly is not Mayberry, MD, nor is it laid back. When I travel to smaller towns, I definitely notice a difference as to how much slower everyone drives, how much more patience they have waiting in line, politeness, and so on.
I certainly do not get that feeling in LA, Miami, NYC, etc.

Just remember that if enough people like me have our rights stripped away from us, you will be severely outnumbered if a tyrannical government ever decides to abolish our Republic. Then again, even if you are still armed, it does not sound like you would lift a finger to oppose whatever the government might decree. To do so would be a violation of the law. ;)

`
 
Serious penalties for minor crimes which are rarely or selectively enforced encourage corruption and discourage respect for the law.
Where do you get the idea that they are rarely or selectively enforced?

I've certainly never said it

What I was trying to point out is that many of the people convicted of a crime that would get their 2a rights taken away live in places where they really do need a gun for self protection.
Maybe they shouldn't engage in behavior that leads to committing those crimes...isn't that what our society aspires to?
 
Where do you get the idea that they are rarely or selectively enforced?

I had pointed out that low level assault (minor fights etc) are fairly common and your response was that it didn't matter since few people are ever convicted of such things. That sounds like rare and selective enforcement to me.

Maybe they shouldn't engage in behavior that leads to committing those crimes...isn't that what our society aspires to?

Never the less a pretty significant fraction of the population does and if a right is fundamental then taking it away should be a last resort.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
Vector said:
Then again, even if you are still armed, it does not sound like you would lift a finger to oppose whatever the government might decree. To do so would be a violation of the law.
It seems that whatever I say will not change your mind. Perhaps they are just things that are beyond your ken.

Growing up in the 60s as a minority had it's own challenges and the changes we fought for were a bit different, but believe me that living a moral life isn't the same as living an ethical one
 
I had pointed out that low level assault (minor fights etc) are fairly common and your response was that it didn't matter since few people are ever convicted of such things. That sounds like rare and selective enforcement to me.
Perhaps definition of terms is the disconnect.

Simple Assault (PC 240) isn't minor fights. It is "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."...in essence, making a threat

Conviction of a crime isn't the same as enforcement of the law against it. Enforcement entails making arrest (LEO), submitting for warrants (Det.) and filing charges (DA)
Conviction is the providence of the Courts, it's officers and juries...due process
 
9mm: I'm talking more broadly about the principle that fundamental rights shouldn't be taken away permanently over an activity that so many feel the need to engage in, not just PC 240.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
9mm: I'm talking more broadly about the principle that fundamental rights shouldn't be taken away permanently over an activity that so many feel the need to engage in, not just PC 240.
Then I think that takes us back to Frank's Post #64

Unless you seriously believe that the widespread and common practice of Domestic Partner Abuse (1 in 3) and Sexual Abuse (1 in 4) should be more socially acceptable
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top