Virginia Beach Police and a Non Gun Buy Back

[Sans Authoritas]

Taurusowner wrote:

I was calling bull#### on the idea that YOU can make any claims as to what the majority of police think, do, or feel. You're just one man, misguided as you are. If you're gonna spout nonsense disguised as fact, at least make it somewhat believable and don't make obviously fabricated claims about what the entire police organization as a whole thinks.

Taurus, to which particular statement do you refer?

What a person does underlies what he believes. One doesn't need a mind-probe to figure it out. Demopublicans and Republicrats pass anti-gun legislation because they think it is morally acceptable to render people defenseless. They do what they believe, and they think that what they do is morally fine. As a whole, people don't tend to spend a lifetime consistently acting contrary to what they think, and they don't spend a lifetime doing routinely doing what is contrary to what they believe. That fact is a part of human nature. It is not dependent upon membership in any "organization."

So if you'd like to call me "misguided" for suggesting that police officers, who routinely arrest people for the "crime" of peacably carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, who routinely arrest people for possessing a chemical that is less dangerous than alcohol, who routinely harrass open-carry proponents, and routinely pull people over for having failed to register their vehicles with the government . . . aye; if you'd like to call me "misguided" for suggesting that all these officers actually believe, think, and feel what they are doing is morally fine, feel free.

If they do not believe, think, and feel that what they are doing is morally fine, then they've got more serious issues they need to tend to.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Today, however, over 70% of the acts they perform involve bullying non-violent, non-dangerous people. They do, of course, perform these actions while fully believing that they are helping the individuals in society. They have to believe it. No one can knowingly choose to do evil for evil's sake.

There are very few policemen out there who think they only have a right to stop people from performing intrinsically unjust aggressive or fraudulent acts against other people. They think they have the right to stop people for acts that are "wrong" only because they are prohibited.

Those statements Sans-Logic. Until you can show me from where you pulled the 70% number or show me how you claim to know what most police think, I'm calling you out for making #### up and trying to pass it off as fact.

One guy posting on the internet cannot know what a large group of people, such as police offircers are thinking as a whole. To do so is to talk out of your ###.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Taurus, then I believe I've covered your concerns with the post above.
What people think is proven by what they do.

30% is a guesstimate of how much of your chosen profession actually involves putting real criminals (murderers, assailants, rapists, thieves, robbers) in prison.

Would you accuse me of "making stuff up" if I said that all elected politicians do what they do because they believe they have some right to take other people's money to subsidize the policies they enact? Would you accuse me of talking out of my ear if I said that terrorists believe that it is morally acceptable, and even laudable, to kill non-combatants to further their political ends, and that if they did not believe this, they would not spend their lives doing so?

Now, once again. Do you think you have a right to stop someone for no other reason than the fact that he is peacefully carrying an AR-15 in the streets of downtown Ann Arbor? Why or why not? Do you think you have the right to arrest someone for peacably carrying concealed without a government-issued permission slip? Why or why not? Given your personal knowledge of your department, how many of the officers, do you suppose, think they have a right to do those things?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

30% is a guess

Thank you for at least admitting you really have no basis for your posts and that you just felt like posting random made up "statistics" to make your posts sound more truthful than they really are.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

That's not at all what I admitted, Taurus. Don't let your misguided barb cause you to think that you can ignore the real questions. Answer them and prove me wrong.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Pilgrim]

Why would you turn in your gun for free? It is plain that none of these guns were "on the street" so the total mission was a failure in my eyes. Excuse me while I go puke!

When I worked for the Sheriff there were a couple of times when newly widowed women came in and asked if the Sheriff would dispose of their deceased husband's guns. They didn't want them. They were afraid of them.

I gave them the phone number of a dealer who I knew would give them a good price for the guns.

They left satisfied that perhaps the guns were worth something to them.

Pilgrim

 

[Claude Clay]

taurusowner

you have a lot of posts & seemingly this thread stings you for some reason.
THR rules you need to review as "###t" we all know what it means and it is not allowed here. can you please explain why you felt that this rule does not apply to you? why you feel as you do is, of course, your business.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

scientific guess? or fourth point of contact variety

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I have a problem with people making up statistics on the spot to support an invalid idea and getting away with it. It's the same nonsense the antis pull. I confront it when I hear it from them, and I'll confront it here. Sans Authoritas is making things up. Even if it gets me banned, at least that one thing will be clear. Sans Authoritas has a bone to pick with law enforcement and he doesn't appear to be above inventing "facts" in order to sell us his ideas. I'm not going to sit by and let it go.

 

[TexasSkyhawk]

can you please explain why you felt that this rule does not apply to you?

Eyes must be gettin' old.

Under your name, I see "Senior Member."

Not "Moderator" or even "Hall Monitor." (By the way, I see that this is your only contribution to the topic, of which, you don't even mention nor discuss the topic.)

I know what the #### mean, and it doesn't offend me nearly as much as the verbeage in the same discussion that calls all cops and law enforcement "bullies' and infers nothing, or a majority of goon-like, facist behavior.

That irritates the you-know-what out of me. (Is "you-know-what" any less offensive than ####, by the way? We all know what that could mean, after all.)

Maybe I should ask Mr. Sans why he's not making his (usual) argument over insomeplace more in line with legal or activism? After all, the topic is about another useless, ineffective "gun-buyback" program, of which such events continue to feed the media and make us look not so good.

When police support such nonsense, it doesn't make them look good as an institution, either--and it greatly undermines the integrity of the individual officers, deputies, troopers and agents who are doing the job truly to serve their nation and their neighbor.

It's a tough job. I've done it. Have you? A little ### in defense of wild, unfounded accusations with sources from outer space doesn't bother me nearly as much as those wild, unfounded accusations do.

Jeff
(proud former federal goon, bully and warmonger)

 

[Sans Authoritas]

I only have a bone to pick with men who enforce bogus laws against behaviors that hurt no one else. I have a problem with someone who claims to be a peace officer and does anything but protect the individual life, liberty and property of invididuals from acts of aggression and fraud.

I have a problem with someone who would arrest someone for peacably carrying a firearm without a government permission slip.

I have a problem with someone who would help throw someone in prison for possession of a substance statistically less harmful and dangerous than alcohol.

I have a problem with someone who thinks he has the right to throw a checkpoint across a road and stop everyone and do a search (and the Supreme Court admitted it was such) to check for DUIs, (and very soon to come, every other conceivable crime.) Because the end, for such men, justifies the means.

I have a problem with someone who would, in effect, forcibly take $180 from someone who did not have his car's existence and legitimacy acknowledged by the local government.

If that is what "law enforcement" is, then you're right. I have a really big bone to pick with "law enforcement."

TexasSkyhawk wrote:

it doesn't offend me nearly as much as the verbeage in the same discussion that calls all cops and law enforcement "bullies' and infers nothing, or a majority of goon-like, facist behavior.

I cannot possibly lay out any more clearly precisely what I said. If you can not discern what I was saying, it is out of my hands, and not my responsibility.

Fascism? Do you mean the notion that every right you have must be approved by the State, and that papers must be acquired in order to efficiently travel and carry a firearm, and that certain few in the government decide what small arms or phenomenally non-dangerous chemicals you may or may not possess? Checkpoints to search for criminals? Do you truly fail to recognize such restrictions for what they are? Does someone who enforces such laws really have to be wearing black shirts and jackboots before you can call his enforcement of those laws "fascist?"

TexasSkyhawk wrote:

wild, unfounded accusations

Precisely what accusation was wild, and what accusation was unfounded? That only 30% of the time, police are actually helping arrest real criminals who actually hurt other people? Is that wild? Are a full 100% of the arrests and fines and pull-overs they make are for crimes that actually harm other people? Really? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Perhaps even 80%? What's your "wild" estimate, TexasSkyhawk?

Taurusowner, once again: Do you think you have a right to stop someone for no other reason than the fact that he is peacefully carrying an AR-15 in the streets of downtown Ann Arbor? Why or why not? Do you think you have the right to arrest someone for peacably carrying concealed without a government-issued permission slip? Why or why not? Given your personal knowledge of your department, how many of the officers, do you suppose, think they have a right to do those things? You have every chance to try to prove my statements wrong right now. Go for it.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Wheeler44]

Motivated or misguided?

In my professional capacity I am well served by trying real hard to understand the motivations of the people that I deal with.

What is the motivation?
Removing guns from the the hands of criminals?
Or removing guns from the hands of law biding citizens?
Or building a really nice collection under the color of the law?

If the "goal" is to remove guns from the hands of criminals, then they are just misguided and must be considered to be idiots.

 

[soccergod04]

Before the lock that is probably coming, I have to agree with most of what Sans is saying.

While I respect police officers and the fact that they have a job to do, they do have some professional discretion. If you see a person with no record of wrongdoing carrying a gun with no permit and not using it to commit any crime, there is nothing that makes you arrest him. Just like if I were to be speeding, I could simply get a warning. How can I be given a ticket for going 23mph over when I have friends that have gotten warnings for going in excess of 30 over? Professional discretion.

I think a main point Sans is making is that victimless crimes shouldn't be persecuted as much. Unfortunately, it's easier to find a college party and write 30 underage drinking tickets and a couple possession tickets for kids who aren't hurting anyone than it is to catch one or two people who are at the same point in time as said party, robbing a home or mugging an elderly couple.

 

[RP88]

Sans, the LEO attacks need to stop.

I generally don't like the police. I appreciate the service they provide, but they generally get on my nerves and collectively piss me off when I read about the hypocrisy and double-standard treatment, as does anyone else.

However, most of them are good people. Some can go back to the junkyards, but I don't see much reason to blame them for a system that the majority of them have no say in, and probably voice complaints as well, or would if they knew that they wouldnt get pissed on by their superior for it.

Also, there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

Is speeding down the road a victimless crime? I mean, aside from the fact that you could crash and damage someone's property, or possibly killing yourself or someone else, etc. But as long as you perceive that you're the only one who is at risk, it's okay? I mean, being the only person on the road excuses you from possibly destroying someone's property, right? Maybe it's okay to decide to intentionally burn my house down. Since I'm the only potential victim, it should be fine, right? C'mon, use some logic. Alot of the so-called victimless crimes are the ones that maybe cause more victims than the actual victimizing crimes.

edit: I'm also betting that the VABPD were more or less aiming for crime guns. If they were aiming for all guns, then they would have offered money, and I wouldnt see them at pawn shops like I always do. So many old glocks around here it's not even funny.

 

[soccergod04]

No such thing as victimless crimes? I never cited a specific type of crime as being victimless, so the speeding point is off-base.

Victimless crime would be if a person wanted to drink a beverage that was illegal to them or ingest a substance that's illegal, in their own home by themself. If someone underage drinks and passes out on their couch, who is the victim?

 

[nutty7462]

I agree with Sans. People seem to get frustrated and ask other questions when they cannot answer the original question asked. IMHO, sans is not bashing police. He is "bashing" (if that is the even the right word) the individuals who choose to act as enforcers of the law instead of public servants.

 

[jrfoxx]

Also, there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

If I cut 2" off the barrel of my sks, who is the victim of the Federal offense I just committed to could get me 10 years in prison?

And I too would like to know what law says a guy cant stand on public property and buy guns from people were were just going to give them to the police.He isnt loitering, since he is there with a legitimate purpose, he isnt tresspassing, it's public property, and is clearly open to the public at the time, and he isnt causing a ruckus, so he wasnt disturbing the peace....


I'd love to hear what they, most likely, invented on the spot, as an excuse to force him to leave, also most likely, under threat of arrest or having a citation issued.

 

[flynlr]

back on topic...


Hey Meester I trade you some gasolina fer those guns k?