assault weapon ban again

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

There are more than 30 states that DO NOT require any form of photo ID to obtain an assault rifle.

If anyone buys a gun from a licensed dealer (no matter which state they reside in), you have to fill out Form 4473 from the federal government and present a government issued id.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

That article is talking about private sales from one person to another (although it conveniently fails to mention that).

The cough syrup argument has been worn out now.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

It still stands, I can go to any gun show in Texas and purchase an assault rifle without showing ID.

And it's still wrong, but at least you're consistent.

You can purchase an assault rifle from an individual, not a dealer, at a gun show in Texas without an id. If you're going to say that, you need to be clear on the matter. You make it sound as if nobody is requiring paperwork or checking ids. Besides, good luck finding an assault rifle for sale from an individual at a gun show. Most people are holding onto them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

And for that matter, can't you pretty much buy a gun in any state from an individual without an id? Are all those shootings in Chicago committed with guns purchased with an id, or do you think most are committed with guns purchased without an id? But, wait, isn't Illinois one of the states that requires an id to purchase a gun? So doesn't that mean that people disregarding the law?

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

If you're trying to argue that a criminal has never purchased a gun through a private sale, you'll most likely lose that argument.

I'm trying to argue just the opposite. Illinois is one of the states that requires an id for private party gun sales. It was more of a question for you. Do you think that the bad guys of Chicago are complying with that law, or do you think they purchase their guns off the street without an id? You would probably say that most of the bad guys purchase their guns off the street without and id, right? Therefore my whole point was what does it matter if there are laws on the books or not requiring an id for private part sales if the bad guys aren't going to comply?

Chicago has some of the strictist gun laws in the country, yet their gun violence is among the highest in the country. Why aren't the laws working? Are there not enough laws in Chicago or do they need more?

[jhs5120]

.

[jandr272]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

There are more than 30 states that DO NOT require any form of photo ID to obtain an assault rifle. I went to my local Shop Rite yesterday and I need to provide my driver's license to pick up cough syrup AND I was limited to only one.

I was asking you to source where officers have been injured or killed by firearms defined as assault rifles.

The Military Transfer Program was originally enacted during George HW Bush's administration. The program isn't so much the government sending police military weapons, but police officers and local officials requesting them. This is the doing of local government/local police forces. If anyone is overbearing, it is them.

It only matters that they have them, and the feds aren't exactly charging them retail. I doubt the Podunk county sheriff has a spare couple of million dollars for a MRAP lying around.

I'm not going to risk my life because the "beloved family dog" of a meth head might get an ear ache.

I was talking about "mishaps" a bit more serious:



That is the result of an overzealous cop with a flashbang. Guess what, nothing has been done to the officer either "it was a tragic mistake" says the department.

Okay, the whole "Militarized Police Force" scare is ridiculous. Gun rights activists argue that Assault Rifles are a necessary tool for protection for every day citizens, but if a police officer (who might actually need such weapons) want to protect themselves the second amendment goes right out the door!

I'm arguing against military tactics and equipment such as flashbangs and light machine guns (as opposed to assault rifles). Allowing cops to carry weapons normal citizens can't creates a citizenry that has more rights than the rest. And the scare isn't ridiculous, because historically when governments stop fearing their own citizens, liberty doesn't last long.

Also, why would a cop need say, a fully automatic M4? Who are they going to be engaging at 300m where they need the capability to fire 600 rounds per minute? I understand deploying flashbangs when clearing an actively hostile room, but for the standard no-knock felony warrant, when the occupants of the room aren't even known? I'm saying the cops here are using tactics we used in Iraq to clear buildings and the vast majority of the time they are swatting flies with a shotgun!

I couldn't care less if the process to purchase handguns and rifles becomes even more stringent or requires basic safety training... but allowing citizens such as cops to have more rights than the rest of citizenry is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

It was a tragic mistake and unavoidable mistake. If I'm raiding the house of a known meth dealer with a history of gun violence and drug related charges, I'm bringing everything I got. They didn't know there was a kid inside and more steps should have been taken to ensure they knew the entire situation, but I'm not going to ban no-knock warrants because one crack baby (not to sound cruel).

I'm sorry, but this was completely avoidable. If you are going to "no knock" raid someone's house, you should know who lives in that house. Due diligence is required. No amount of drugs is worth this type of "mistake". It's a baby-why you would call this infant a "crack baby" is repugnant. No knock warrants , in my opinion, should only be for people wanted for the most serious felonies, like murder, robbery, rape, etc. Not because their "confidential informant" bought a small amount of drugs from a guy OUTSIDE of the home.

Accidents in this line of work are bound to happen.....but if you haven't noticed-everything is "a mistake", and they promise "a thorough investigation". But-they end up cleared, as usual.

It's not popular to point out police abuse, but enough is enough! Kelly Thomas-that's what did it for me- it's time for a major discussion on this type of behavior. The good police need to start speaking up-and if they see a fellow officer who can't handle the stress of the job and is a potential danger to the public, they need to let their supervisor know and remove him or her.

The war on drugs brought us all of this gestapo style crap.....it needs to be fixed. I have a lot of respect for these LEO's- L.E.A.P.- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Veteran police, judges, correction officers, detectives, etc......who are speaking out about the damage and absurdity that the war on drugs has brought us as a country. I would highly recommend watching this-startling statistics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsk8R_j5zzg

Want to know how controlled our media is? Did you realize Mexico decriminalized ALL street drugs a few years back? I honestly didn't know until I watched this video.....then I researched it, and I couldn't believe it. WTF?

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

It was a tragic mistake and unavoidable mistake. If I'm raiding the house of a known meth dealer with a history of gun violence and drug related charges, I'm bringing everything I got. They didn't know there was a kid inside and more steps should have been taken to ensure they knew the entire situation, but I'm not going to ban no-knock warrants because one crack baby (not to sound cruel).

I'm not sure where you are getting your information about the story^^ but it almost sounds like you are talking about something different. This was not a "crack baby" (as if that even makes a difference-a baby is a baby)- but I didn't read anything about a history of gun violence. Maybe I missed that. But, if you read the end of this report, you will see they located their subject, and without hesitation or confrontation, he WILLINGLY went with police. So, all of this militarized B/S was UNNECESSARY.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/...ams-raids-aclu

As far as the original topic- the reason they want "gun control" has NOTHING to do with any of the killings in the past 6 years. If your eyes were wide open, you would understand what I'm saying. With all due respect.

Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

You just always go on weird tangents about the police and the DHS and government conspiracies, but I realize what your impression is of the federal government and "why" you believe they want to control firearm purchases. I just think you're wrong. With all due respect.

I'll sum myself up for you: Anti-corruption, freedom loving American. Oh, and I can't stand abuse of power and trust. CNN..........ah, never mind.

http://benswann.com/faith-in-police-...historic-lows/

Here I go on another weird tangent-only because after I logged out, and went to my homepage, this was right there in front of me:

http://news.yahoo.com/as-wars-wind-d...233505138.html

The fact of the matter is......I'm not making ANY of this stuff up. How can you say any of this stuff I link to is "government conspiracies"? I'm not writing these articles. Is it all a figment of my imagination? Is there no cause for alarm?

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg



Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I'm not going to risk my life because the "beloved family dog" of a meth head might get an ear ache. Think.

Today, reported by AP:

http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-officer-su...204342108.html

What a guy.

Sincerely, Clayton