Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Topic Author
Posts: 6081
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:01 pm

Looks like Baton Rouge police have been ambushed this morning. 3 dead 7 shot. Disgusting

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/us/baton- ... index.html
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21894
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:08 pm

I don't even know what to say anymore except that THIS DOES NOT NEED TO KEEP HAPPENING.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5045
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:18 pm

DocLightning wrote:
I don't even know what to say anymore except that THIS DOES NOT NEED TO KEEP HAPPENING.

But it will.

The gun laws won't be changed, and after two shooting incidents like this in such a short period, police will be even more on guard, and quite likely even more trigger-happy (and they're already ridiculously trigger-happy in the US), leading to more deaths, and more retaliations.

All because nobody will budge and want to seriously sit down and discuss either the gun laws or the police violence and training that are important factors in getting to where the US is right now.
It's an absolute taboo among lawmakers, and many more people will die as a result.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22775
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:38 pm

As with the Dallas shooting (and the laundry list of others) I have to ask:

Where was the "good guy with a gun" that gun nuts, NRA, and ammosexuals keep on about as their big argument as to why we all need guns?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21894
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:58 pm

Scorpio wrote:
All because nobody will budge and want to seriously sit down and discuss either the gun laws or the police violence and training that are important factors in getting to where the US is right now.
It's an absolute taboo among lawmakers, and many more people will die as a result.


The problem is that the cat is out of the bag. There are hundreds of millions of firearms out there. If we repealed the 2nd amendment tomorrow morning and suspended the 4th and went door-to-door ransacking houses looking for guns, it would take years to get them all out of circulation. But that's, of course, an absolutely absurd scenario and of course nothing like that would happen.

So any realistic solution will take generations to have an impact at this point.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Lilienthal
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 11:47 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:03 pm

Let's wait until more information is available on the background of the incident. False click-bait news articles are one part of the problem, people with absolutely no clue of what has actually happened, speculating and riling each other up on online forums is another...
 
NoTime
Posts: 624
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:05 pm

Good luck, Baton Rouge, I see the Ferguson Effect in your near future.
 
910A
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:11 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:18 pm

Not again...30 years in law enforcement, not once did I have to fire in anger and no one fired at me. Of course, we had strict gun laws in my state at the time. RIP Officers.
 
OMP777X
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:37 pm

This is not a police ambush based on what I'm reading in the reports. It is indicated by witnesses that the shooting began well before police arrived.

"Witness Brady Vancel told WAFB that he saw two people shooting at each other before authorities even arrived."
“There was multiple gunshots going back and forth and back and forth before any police ever showed up. This was not a come-at-police situation,” Vancel said. “They weren’t targeting police at first, I don’t assume so, because these were men out here shooting at each other in an empty parking lot until the police showed and then it turned into a gun battle, I’m guessing to try to get themselves free or get out of the situation.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bat ... c3ee51383b

Best,

OMP777X
Last edited by OMP777X on Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Happy Flighting!"
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 12706
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:38 pm

That wasn't a quote Charles. All due respect, you're way out of line. A direct quote from last week's ABC townhall:

"We expect police to solve a whole range of societal problems that we ourselves have neglected," Obama said. "We have communities without jobs, with substandard schools, where the drug trade is so often considered the only way to make money. Communities that are inundated with guns. Where there's a lack of mental health services or drug treatment services. Then, we say to the police, go deal with that."

Sure looks to me like your take on Obama's comments re cops is all mixed up with emotional claptrap in your head.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13341
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:22 pm

This is insane.

All of this is happening in Hammond Aire plaza.
I had my first full-time job there, more than 20yrs ago.

It was always a safe, community, family area. I used to take my car to the Benny's Carwash (front&center in all the videos being shown) every Friday.

I can't believe this is happening, right in my old stomping grounds. It can happen anywhere. :( :(
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:58 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
That wasn't a quote Charles.


OK, how about:

- "Yes, it was wrong what happened here in Dallas, but what happened in Louisiana and Minnesota was wrong, too.” - That is a direct statement of equatability.
- "If you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime"
- "We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book" Now this one was a real howler. Not only was it factually untrue in every sense, but he is inserting his political agenda, even though increased background checks or assault weapons bans would not have had any effect on the shooting.
- "Blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there"

Oops, sorry, that last one was Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. for policy research.

Here something interesting that should be good fuel for debate, because it is based on FACTS. There is data here that supports and debunks some aspects of both sides of this debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upsho ... .html?_r=0

In this study, by Roland G. Fryer Jr., a professor of economics at Harvard (and black BTW) shows evidence that blacks are more likely to have some form of physical force used on them than whites, anything from the use of hands to being slammed to the ground or being held at gunpoint. This is data, and worthy of debate and discussion. Interestingly, Fryer does not find the same disparity when it comes to shootings. That is interesting, because it flies in the face of the BLM crowd, who seem to be under the impression that cops are actually hunting black people.

Let's talk about facts and data. It is very hard to discuss with a people whose cause was based on a lie (Hands Up Don't Shoot never happened, and Michael Brown was a thug who tried to grab a cop's gun), and who scream "Racist" in your face if you ever disagree with them.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18251
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:30 pm

Cleveland police union asks for suspension of 'open carry' in wake of Baton Rouge, ahead of RNC

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/ ... d=26646444

What was NRA/Ohio resident Joe the plumber's line? 'Your dead cops don't trump my rights?'
I don't take responsibility at all
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8084
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:04 pm

Scorpio wrote:
The gun laws won't be changed,


Because, it is not a gun control issue. And, to claim it is, is either being ignorant or being disingenuous.

seb146 wrote:
Where was the "good guy with a gun" that gun nuts, NRA, and ammosexuals keep on about as their big argument as to why we all need guns?


Because, contrary to the hoplaphobes' belief that every law-abiding gun owner/carrier is a cowboy/hero/action movie star in-waiting, we are not. In the Dallas incident, there was a massive police presence to begin with. Why would a law-abiding citizen introduce a firearm into that particular environment? They were plenty of reports of folks open-carrying rifles, and, having lived there, I can assure you there were plenty of folks carrying concealed. But, none of them, felt the need to "help" the police, because there were adequate police there.

In fact, the lack of involvement by law-abiding gun owners proves that the anti-gun nuts are wrong.

Scorpio wrote:
police will be even more on guard


Yup. The police will be going into a "force protection" mode. They've been moving towards the bunker mentality ever since the false narrative of Fergusen was pushed by the media and the administration.

The main police department around here has moved to 2 officers per patrol car. I haven't spoken to my buddy in a while, but I wonder how long that can last without putting a strain on budgets and home life.

Strange, interesting and dangerous times we are living in. For me, and ,any I know, I'll go armed every where I can legally do so. Not because I'm a wanna be hero, because I'm the first the of defense for my family and myself.

All those in law-enforcement and the emergency services (they'll be next, because they are soft targets), stay low, stay safe and keep your collective heads on a swivel.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or may not come at all.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:19 pm

fr8mech wrote:
In fact, the lack of involvement by law-abiding gun owners proves that the anti-gun nuts are wrong.

I don't have the time to post why this is a total red herring, but also it is such an empty phrase as to not be worth responding to.

I'm only replying anyway because I'm two hours early for class.
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 12706
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:24 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
That wasn't a quote Charles.


OK, how about:

- "Yes, it was wrong what happened here in Dallas, but what happened in Louisiana and Minnesota was wrong, too.” - That is a direct statement of equatability.
- "If you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime"
- "We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book" Now this one was a real howler. Not only was it factually untrue in every sense, but he is inserting his political agenda, even though increased background checks or assault weapons bans would not have had any effect on the shooting.
- "Blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there"

Oops, sorry, that last one was Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. for policy research.

Here something interesting that should be good fuel for debate, because it is based on FACTS. There is data here that supports and debunks some aspects of both sides of this debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upsho ... .html?_r=0

In this study, by Roland G. Fryer Jr., a professor of economics at Harvard (and black BTW) shows evidence that blacks are more likely to have some form of physical force used on them than whites, anything from the use of hands to being slammed to the ground or being held at gunpoint. This is data, and worthy of debate and discussion. Interestingly, Fryer does not find the same disparity when it comes to shootings. That is interesting, because it flies in the face of the BLM crowd, who seem to be under the impression that cops are actually hunting black people.

Let's talk about facts and data. It is very hard to discuss with a people whose cause was based on a lie (Hands Up Don't Shoot never happened, and Michael Brown was a thug who tried to grab a cop's gun), and who scream "Racist" in your face if you ever disagree with them.


What does any of the above have to do with your anger-fueled tirade toward POTUS and his disposition toward cops?

His remarks just now: targeting cops is the work of cowards, no American rightfully accepts it, these people have a difficult job, yada yada. You can't just get angry and paint the office a color it isn't...
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
wingman
Posts: 4019
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:56 am

Again we see statements about guns not being the problem in any way whatsoever. Fr8mech put it out there when even the NRA is staying away from the recent killings because of one glaring factoid which I guess he missed: there were gun-toting law-abiding citizens all over these last two mass police murder event, the frigging cops themselves. I couldn't point out a bigger "DOH!" moment if it walked up and slapped me upside the face. Now think about something else very carefully chief...put aside the gross number of deaths by guns every year in the general population and let's focus instead on cops killed by guns, just that one stat. I don't have the facts handy myself but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that a chart of all industrialized countries would show that the US not only leads that gun death olympic event as always, I'm wondering if any other country has more than zero or one per year in the past decade. This country is absolutely flooded with weapons that course through every neighborhood virtually unchecked. No rational semi-intelligent person would dismiss guns as, at minimum, one of the top 3 factors behind the 30 police murders so far this year in the United States. The reason the NRA doesn't like to talk about it is because they know the policy statement you spewed out of your mouth without an iota of forethought is so utterly absurd in this case and the one in Dallas. In both cases the murderers were literally surrounded by tens or hundreds of...get ready for it...not only LAW ABIDING United States citizens armed out the wazoo with SWAT-like arsenals, they were actually LAW ENFORCEMENT United States citizens armed also with plastic explosive-carrying R2D2 robots. Do you comprehend how positively asinine your comment is now?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13341
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:07 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
What was NRA/Ohio resident Joe the plumber's line? 'Your dead cops don't trump my rights?'

Even worse: it was "your dead kids"
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13389
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:22 am

In a way it's surprising that this hasn't happened a long time ago already. Now I fear many more attacks will happen, similarly to what happens in Israel with knife attacks.

In France we had mass riots for 2 youth "killed by the police" when the police wasn't even near the youth and certainly didn't shoot any bullet, they were just in pursuit. If there was a similar shooting as is common in the US I would expect to see some police stations burning down.

fr8mech wrote:
Strange, interesting and dangerous times we are living in. For me, and ,any I know, I'll go armed every where I can legally do so. Not because I'm a wanna be hero, because I'm the first the of defense for my family and myself.


And you might end up killed by cops with a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality as a result.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
YZF101
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:14 am

Well, it is a sad thing that this is becoming more of a norm now.

The talk of it being a gun problem and calls for gun control seems to be out there in left field. I mean, really....these guns didn't just "appear" two years ago. Americans have had guns for many many years, and some of very nice quality too. Full auto numbers of years ago too.

Society does have a problem, and I won't be foolish enough to say what the solution is - I'll let Mr. Obama say the "right" (cough cough) "thing".

Gun control sounds like a very sloppy bandaging job with dirty, used dressings. Federal oversight of the country's police forces sounds scary (that was just something I came across - probably not verifiable) as heck.

America is going to burn. Pity, really. All avoidable.

:(
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8084
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:39 pm

wingman wrote:
there were gun-toting law-abiding citizens all over these last two mass police murder event, the frigging cops themselves.


The were the targets.

Aesma wrote:
And you might end up killed by cops with a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality as a result.


I doubt it. I don't open carry. The only way an officer would know I'm armed is if I tell him, or I draw it. And, if there are already police in the area, my reasons to draw are drastically reduced. I do comply, immediately with police commands...if I ever have occasion to be commanded by an officer.

YZF101 wrote:
Society does have a problem,


Correct. It's not one problem, but many that have been allowed to fester...including police going too far. Fixing this will take time, effort, patience, and strength.

YZF101 wrote:
Gun control sounds like a very sloppy bandaging job with dirty, used dressings


Screaming and demanding gun control is lazy and ineffectual to the problem. Take away every gun and the grievances remain. Answer the tough questions and address the grievances.

YZF101 wrote:
Federal oversight of the country's police


We already have a low-level of federal oversight, via the civil rights violation investigations that the DoJ takes on at, seemingly, random points. Federal control is the real scary issue.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or may not come at all.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22775
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:59 pm

fr8mech wrote:
YZF101 wrote:
Gun control sounds like a very sloppy bandaging job with dirty, used dressings


Screaming and demanding gun control is lazy and ineffectual to the problem. Take away every gun and the grievances remain. Answer the tough questions and address the grievances.


Gun control is not even close to the same thing as taking away all the guns. No matter how many times NRA and ammosexuals and gun nuts say it, they are not anywhere near the same. I know they like to keep repeating that lie so it makes them sound good, but those two concepts are not the same.

Also, some sources are saying this ex-Marine who did the shooting are saying he thought he was under government surveillance and thought police were behind his being watched and followed. He had served tours in Iraq, so would it be any wonder if PTSD would come into play here? Not excusing his behavior but it would serve those right who insist that BLM is a "terrorist" group and who jumped on the train of thought that this was BLM based.

Two police shootings and neither of them endorsed or launched by BLM. Pretty bad look for a terrorist group, no?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
lugie
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:11 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 7:21 pm

seb146 wrote:
fr8mech wrote:

Screaming and demanding gun control is lazy and ineffectual to the problem. Take away every gun and the grievances remain. Answer the tough questions and address the grievances.


Gun control is not even close to the same thing as taking away all the guns. No matter how many times NRA and ammosexuals and gun nuts say it, they are not anywhere near the same. I know they like to keep repeating that lie so it makes them sound good, but those two concepts are not the same.

Also, some sources are saying this ex-Marine who did the shooting are saying he thought he was under government surveillance and thought police were behind his being watched and followed. He had served tours in Iraq, so would it be any wonder if PTSD would come into play here? Not excusing his behavior but it would serve those right who insist that BLM is a "terrorist" group and who jumped on the train of thought that this was BLM based.

Two police shootings and neither of them endorsed or launched by BLM. Pretty bad look for a terrorist group, no?


Spot on, seb. Your post gives a perfect example of what gun control should actually be about...

This guy came back from Iraq as a scarred veteran, probably with PTSDs and apparently severe signs of paranoia, yet he was able to attain a gun capable of taking out 3 armed and armored police officers.
Frequent and consequent background checks on gun owners and those planning to become one could prevent a lot of suffering brought upon others by lone wolves and/or mentally ill people. Just like people who are on terrorist watchlists (you can't board a plane? - you most definitely shouldn't be able to buy guns!)

For every so often quoted "law-abiding citizen" this would have hardly any consequences and it's miles away from the myth of massive gun-roundups the right so loves to peddle...
Q400 E175 E190 CRJ7 CRJ9 CRJX MD88 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A359 B733 B73G B738 B739 B748 B764 B772 B77W B788 B789
FRA STR HAM TXL MUC ZRH ACE BRU BLL DUB MAN ARN MAD OPO LIS FNC AMS PHL RDU LGA CLT EWR ORD ATL SFO MDW IAD YYZ SJO PTY
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 7:32 pm

seb146 wrote:

Screaming and demanding gun control is lazy and ineffectual to the problem. Take away every gun and the grievances remain. Answer the tough questions and address the grievances.


Gun control is not even close to the same thing as taking away all the guns. No matter how many times NRA and ammosexuals and gun nuts say it, they are not anywhere near the same. I know they like to keep repeating that lie so it makes them sound good, but those two concepts are not the same.
[/quote]

The entire left used the shooting(s) to scream for more gun control. So if, as you say, "Gun control is not even close to the same thing as taking away all the guns", what is it you want exactly? Assault weapon ban? The weapons involved were not assault weapons by any definition. More background checks? The shooters were clean - one even had a security clearance. What exactly do you want?
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22775
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:13 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Screaming and demanding gun control is lazy and ineffectual to the problem. Take away every gun and the grievances remain. Answer the tough questions and address the grievances.


Gun control is not even close to the same thing as taking away all the guns. No matter how many times NRA and ammosexuals and gun nuts say it, they are not anywhere near the same. I know they like to keep repeating that lie so it makes them sound good, but those two concepts are not the same.


The entire left used the shooting(s) to scream for more gun control. So if, as you say, "Gun control is not even close to the same thing as taking away all the guns", what is it you want exactly? Assault weapon ban? The weapons involved were not assault weapons by any definition. More background checks? The shooters were clean - one even had a security clearance. What exactly do you want?[/quote]

Something. Anything is better than a terrorist organization leading the government and saying "welp, nothing we can do because Second Amendment!" People want answers, not more dead for no reason. The party of "every life is precious" needs to take responsibility and stop terror organizations like NRA from banning talking about doing something.

If you agree that life is sacred, you need to help do something. Anything more than "oh, well..."

Also, if you get to run around demanding that BLM is a terrorist organization for not killing anyone, then NRA has to be labeled as a terrorist organization for allowing thousands to be killed every year for no good reason.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:40 pm

seb146 wrote:
Something. Anything is better than a terrorist organization leading the government and saying "welp, nothing we can do because Second Amendment!" People want answers, not more dead for no reason. The party of "every life is precious" needs to take responsibility and stop terror organizations like NRA from banning talking about doing something.


"Something" is not good enough. Even in the broadest terms, suggest some form of additional gun control that would have stopped or at least hindered these attacks. You guys started this, blaming guns, back it up. I'm waiting...

The vast majority of mass shooters got the weapons perfectly legally. I agree that that is a problem. The problem seems to be that bureaucratic government failed to detect something in the shooters' pasts that should have prevented him from buying a firearm. A great example is the Charleston case last year. His local police department failed in reporting the one thing that could have prevented him from buying a firearm-his own admission that he was an unlawful user of a prescription opiate that was not prescribed to him.

This also proved that government officials were incompetent to complete his background check until months (not days) after his own admission. They also had the advantage that they incorrectly listed his misdemeanor arrest as a felony and they were still incompetent to use their own screw-up to their advantage. This is a case of the Keystone Cops. In short, they had months to deny him a firearms purchase for two distinct reasons and they still failed.

Knowing that government is incompetent, do you propose to give them even more power? Give me an idea - I'm open to suggestions. Like I said, I agree it's a problem.

However I do think that we can do better as a society to combat the overall problem is to examine the cultures, influences and ideologies that are breeding these shooters. Some are motivated by racist hate (Charleston, Dallas, Baton Rouge). Others by a Islamic Jihad. Others are pure sociopaths. All of these need to be examined and ranked in terms of likelihood to repeat, and combated in schools and elsewhere.

And by the way, NRA a terrorist organization? What is the percentage of mass shooting event that was committed by an NRA member? I think the answer is zero. NRA members in fact represent one of the most law-abiding demographics in the country.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:46 pm

DocLightning wrote:
I don't even know what to say anymore except that THIS DOES NOT NEED TO KEEP HAPPENING.


Agreed, tell Obama to stop promoting the racist hatred against police.

All eight of these police officers (Dallas, Baton Rouge) plus several more killed and attacked in other cities during this time frame, are a result of his encouragement of BLM and their rioting.

I bet he feels none of these police officers could be his son.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8084
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:11 pm

seb146 wrote:
Gun control is not even close to the same thing as taking away all the guns. No matter how many times NRA and ammosexuals and gun nuts say it, they are not anywhere near the same. I know they like to keep repeating that lie so it makes them sound good, but those two concepts are not the same.


We already have gun control. The Second Amendment is the most regulated (controlled) constitutional right we have. The end-game is gun confiscation, make no mistake. The Left's long-view is something I admire about them. They peck and nibble. They keep at it. Little successes here and there. They don't let simple things like Supreme Court opinions deter them. The end-game is gun confiscation...every little infringement on our (all of OUR) gun rights is a step in that direction.

Mrs. Clinton is in favor of an Australian style gun ban. In case you didn't know, that was a confiscation.

seb146 wrote:
Something.


Ah, yes. The rallying cry of politicians and the liberal left: "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!". It doesn't matter if that something is a duplication of something else. It doesn't matter if that something is ineffectual. It doesn't matter if that something tramples all over The People's rights. So long as something is done, we can all feel better. Rubbish. If you're going to do something, do something that will work.
seb146 wrote:
terror organizations like NRA


How about we start with enforcing the current laws and allowing states to share information on the mental health of its citizens?

seb146 wrote:
stop terror organizations like NRA


So, how many of these terrorists have gone down yelling "long live the NRA"?

Please, The NRA has its faults, but being a terrorist organization is not one of them.

Take away the guns and the hate remains. Deal with the hate and the weapons don't matter.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or may not come at all.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18251
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:30 pm

fr8mech wrote:
Please, The NRA has its faults, but being a terrorist organization is not one of them.

Calling the NRA a terrorist organization is unfair. The NRA kills 1000x more Americans than terrorists.
LAX772LR wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
What was NRA/Ohio resident Joe the plumber's line? 'Your dead cops don't trump my rights?'

Even worse: it was "your dead kids"

I wonder if he'd say that to the Cleveland cops union.

Dreadnought wrote:
Give me an idea - I'm open to suggestions.

No you're not. No one's buyin' it.

L-188 wrote:
I bet he feels none of these police officers could be his son.

OH GOD THE HORROR! How dare he say a victim looks like his son?! So divisive! Jesus Christ.
I don't take responsibility at all
 
wingman
Posts: 4019
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:31 pm

L-188 wrote:

Agreed, tell Obama to stop promoting the racist hatred against police.

All eight of these police officers (Dallas, Baton Rouge) plus several more killed and attacked in other cities during this time frame, are a result of his encouragement of BLM and their rioting.

I bet he feels none of these police officers could be his son.


Where are you getting this information? Please show your sources for what is yet another absurdist fantasy talking point from Fox News. Obama has vehemently defended both the rights of the police to carry out their duties and the right of protesters to free speech. Or are you getting this from Drumpf and this mystical "body language" he says Obama is secretly conveying to all black so that they take up arms and kill cops? I've seen the speeches and there are no low down gang symbols being thrown down anywhere, there are no winks, and there are no "base stealing" signs. You and Cheeto Jesus were made for each other man.
 
User avatar
kasimir
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:07 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:18 pm

I could write a long story, but I will try to write something short regarding all the police murders and police brutality against blacks and other minorities in general.

This problem cannot be solved by one thing, but it is a very complex problem that only exist in the US (when comparing to other developed nations) and points to the same problems that also leads to other current problems in the US like mass shootings, a new but strong racism that is emerging (against other colors or religions) and this extreme divide in the political system and media that basically became a fight between two extremes which makes it nearly impossible to have a moderate or objective conversation.

What are these big problems?
- First of all to everybody and all sides... CALM THE F... DOWN and use your head! Nobody is perfect, but this extreme emotionally heated up environment will only lead to more people doing more stupid things!
- Education, education, education... This would solve a lot of problems, instead that the US would pump billions of dollars into the militarization of the police force (and other useless money pits), why not invest more in education in the broadest sense. Beginning in good public schools to possibly give the minorities the chance to get out of poverty and the ghettos and don't become criminal, up to better police education so that the police can do a better and more professional job to "serve and protect"! Just to give an example, the average police education in the US takes 18 weeks, while in most other developed nations its 2-3 years!
- Gun control!!!! This obsession with guns and the second amendment has to stop! I am not advocating a complete ban on guns (its not realistic), but some basic gun controls and regulation is COMMON SENSE and would help to stop most of the insane shootings that we are seeing. The folks that have nothing to hide and done nothing wrong should not worry anyway about their guns, but these are not the folks that we are concerned about anyway right??
- End the corruption!!! This is such a huge issue, that I am surprised that nobody talks about it. I am talking about corruption on all levels! From small scale decisions up to the political corruption all the way up to washington and in mainstream media. You lead by example and if it has become the norm that you try to screw everyone and the only thing that counts is money, then its no wonder that it reflects in all layers of society and its behaviour.

While I am truly disgusted by the horrible acts committed by some individuals against the police, I am just as upset with the US police (not all are bad) for a long time... While not being personally affected by them and I am very happy to live in a country where the police SERVES AND PROTECTS, I just finished watching the BBC documentary "NYPD - Biggest Gang in New York" has upset me and I somehow understand the hate and mistrust against the police in the USA.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22775
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:13 pm

fr8mech wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Gun control is not even close to the same thing as taking away all the guns. No matter how many times NRA and ammosexuals and gun nuts say it, they are not anywhere near the same. I know they like to keep repeating that lie so it makes them sound good, but those two concepts are not the same.


We already have gun control. The Second Amendment is the most regulated (controlled) constitutional right we have. The end-game is gun confiscation, make no mistake. The Left's long-view is something I admire about them. They peck and nibble. They keep at it. Little successes here and there. They don't let simple things like Supreme Court opinions deter them. The end-game is gun confiscation...every little infringement on our (all of OUR) gun rights is a step in that direction.

Mrs. Clinton is in favor of an Australian style gun ban. In case you didn't know, that was a confiscation.


Which is why Australians are allowed to own guns.

fr8mech wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Something.


Ah, yes. The rallying cry of politicians and the liberal left: "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!". It doesn't matter if that something is a duplication of something else. It doesn't matter if that something is ineffectual. It doesn't matter if that something tramples all over The People's rights. So long as something is done, we can all feel better. Rubbish. If you're going to do something, do something that will work.

Unlike the terrorists at the NRA who watch kids being slaughtered and say "meh..." or watch Christians praying peacefully in their church being slaughtered and say "meh..." or watch college students going to class trying to build a better life for themselves being slaughtered and say "meh..."

fr8mech wrote:
seb146 wrote:
terror organizations like NRA


How about we start with enforcing the current laws and allowing states to share information on the mental health of its citizens?


And we end up with Heller and we end up with NRA and ammosexuals and evangelicals screaming about how "liberals are taking our guns away!" and "let's repeal Obamacare and see what happens to replace it."

fr8mech wrote:
seb146 wrote:
stop terror organizations like NRA


So, how many of these terrorists have gone down yelling "long live the NRA"?

Please, The NRA has its faults, but being a terrorist organization is not one of them.

Take away the guns and the hate remains. Deal with the hate and the weapons don't matter.


The second there is a mass shooting, it is Islam and BLM and "liberals" who are blamed. Even before any facts come out, the media and NRA and ammosexuals are out in force insisting that was who did it. Then, when people suggest we try to do something about access to guns so something can be done to curb the violence, the NRA and ammosexuals and the media are out in force screaming about the Second Amendment.

Now, keep in mind the Second Amendment was written at a time when people were used as currency and women could not vote and Natives were thought of as animals and the only ones trusted to run the government were educated, land owning white men, and guns were single shot, hand loaded.

Yes, we do need to expand mental health treatment. But, access to guns is a problem. When a convicted felon can buy as many as s/he wants or someone who has a history of violence or mental illness has easy access to guns there is a problem. But, when those laws can not be enforced because NRA and it's followers scream about the Second Amendment and then watch the massacre of people and their reaction is "meh...", there is a problem there, too.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Tue Jul 19, 2016 12:19 am

seb146 wrote:
The second there is a mass shooting, it is Islam and BLM and "liberals" who are blamed. Even before any facts come out, the media and NRA and ammosexuals are out in force insisting that was who did it.


And they are usually right.

seb146 wrote:
Now, keep in mind the Second Amendment was written at a time when people were used as currency and women could not vote and Natives were thought of as animals and the only ones trusted to run the government were educated, land owning white men, and guns were single shot, hand loaded.


There you go again measuring political views of 230 years ago to today's standard. I suppose you consider Leonardo da Vinci an idiot, as he got some of his scientific discoveries wrong.

As for the "single shot hand loaded" myth, I suppose you never heard of the Girandoni air rifle? Fired .43 caliber bullets at about the same velocity as a modern Colt 45, effective range of around 150 meters with accuracy, and could fire 23 rounds in about a minute. Invented in 1779 in Austria, it was issued to the Austrian army from 1780 to 1815. And guess what - it was manufactured under license in the US - by a gunsmith called Lukens whose shop was literally a few yards away from Independence Hall in Philadelphia. I think it's safe to say they knew about it.

seb146 wrote:
Yes, we do need to expand mental health treatment. But, access to guns is a problem. When a convicted felon can buy as many as s/he wants or someone who has a history of violence or mental illness has easy access to guns there is a problem.


As for felons, it's already illegal. What are your proposals re mental illness?
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22775
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:30 am

Dreadnought wrote:
seb146 wrote:
The second there is a mass shooting, it is Islam and BLM and "liberals" who are blamed. Even before any facts come out, the media and NRA and ammosexuals are out in force insisting that was who did it.


And they are usually right.


Even though they are not. The Baton Rouge killer was mentally ill. If you knew anything about mental illness and schizophrenia and bipolar and PTSD, you would know that.

Dreadnought wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Now, keep in mind the Second Amendment was written at a time when people were used as currency and women could not vote and Natives were thought of as animals and the only ones trusted to run the government were educated, land owning white men, and guns were single shot, hand loaded.


There you go again measuring political views of 230 years ago to today's standard. I suppose you consider Leonardo da Vinci an idiot, as he got some of his scientific discoveries wrong.

As for the "single shot hand loaded" myth, I suppose you never heard of the Girandoni air rifle? Fired .43 caliber bullets at about the same velocity as a modern Colt 45, effective range of around 150 meters with accuracy, and could fire 23 rounds in about a minute. Invented in 1779 in Austria, it was issued to the Austrian army from 1780 to 1815. And guess what - it was manufactured under license in the US - by a gunsmith called Lukens whose shop was literally a few yards away from Independence Hall in Philadelphia. I think it's safe to say they knew about it.


So, now, all of a sudden, the Constitution is a "living document" that needs to change with the times? I thought you "tea party" and "evangelical" GOP types believe that the Constitution is set in stone and we should never ever deviate from that? What are the boys at Fox going to think about you becoming a liberal?

Dreadnought wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Yes, we do need to expand mental health treatment. But, access to guns is a problem. When a convicted felon can buy as many as s/he wants or someone who has a history of violence or mental illness has easy access to guns there is a problem.


As for felons, it's already illegal. What are your proposals re mental illness?


Felons can buy guns. The "gun show loophole" and private sales. As far as mental illness, Obamacare would help that, but the GOP wants nothing to do with that. They do not give a damn about veterans or helping. They just want to "wait and see" which is what they wanted to impeach Pelosi for. Remember? "Pass Obamacare and wait and see what is in it" and the howls from the right were deafening. Yet, when you all do it, it is patriotic and a great thing.

But, the death and chaos caused by the "party of life" and "party of every life is precious" is non existent. You all do not care about life. All you all do is laugh and see dollar signs every time there is a mass shooting. And it is disgusting. For people who love life, you all certainly cheer on death a lot.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:26 am

seb146 wrote:
Even though they are not. The Baton Rouge killer was mentally ill. If you knew anything about mental illness and schizophrenia and bipolar and PTSD, you would know that.


Yes, he was pretty cracked. But he showed a lot of racist hatred as well, and the political rhetoric of the past few years, plus the recent shooting incidents set him off.

seb146 wrote:
So, now, all of a sudden, the Constitution is a "living document" that needs to change with the times? I thought you "tea party" and "evangelical" GOP types believe that the Constitution is set in stone and we should never ever deviate from that? What are the boys at Fox going to think about you becoming a liberal?


Every time you lose an argument you just change directions and attack attack attack. Have you seen someone about anger issues?

I dare you to name ONE SINGLE PERSON, who said that the Constitution "is set in stone and we should never ever deviate from that". Of course the Constitution can change - that's what the amendment process is for. What I do not agree is for change (regardless of how desirable, wise or needed) to be simply imputed onto the Constitution by court decision, rather than the proper way - by an amendment.

Example, I have said for many years that we should have universal healthcare mandated by the federal government (though Obamacare is a piss-poor attempt at it). But Obamacare should have been deemed unconstitutional. I don't see anything in the Constitution that authorizes it. Nothing. Having a court impute that it does, based on a warped interpretation itself based on a warped interpretation of 100s of other imprecise judgements is morally wrong - and is the most damning evidence that we have ceased to be a nation of laws. The law (i.e. the Constitution) says what it says and was pretty damned clear about not allowing government outside a limited space. The right way is to pass an amendment. That's the way you change a law... by changing the f&%$ing law! Not by saying "Oh, let's just pretend it says that...".

seb146 wrote:
Felons can buy guns. The "gun show loophole" and private sales. As far as mental illness, Obamacare would help that, but the GOP wants nothing to do with that.


The "loophole" you talk about is largely a myth. I've bought guns at shows, and had to go through a background check every time. Anyone who has a display or stand at a gun show is some sort of gun seller/reseller, and must do the checks. Anyone selling more than two or three guns per year is considered to be "in the business" and is required to do the checks, as far as I recall.

Private sales, well, good luck changing that. It would be a lot easier for you to address the causes for the violence, like I laid out earlier.

seb146 wrote:
But, the death and chaos caused by the "party of life" and "party of every life is precious" is non existent. You all do not care about life. All you all do is laugh and see dollar signs every time there is a mass shooting. And it is disgusting. For people who love life, you all certainly cheer on death a lot.


Oh man, that is so rich. You have the nerve to lecture me about not caring about life, when you insist on concentrating on a very tiny number of deaths that are very dramatic and media-friendly (around 25 deaths a year) and was told in another thread that the 5000 or so lives lost in black on black crime are, "irrelevant" by our friend DLX.

Conservatives have been tearing our hair out for years about the root causes for black poverty (and all other groups' poverty as well - we generally don't like to think of separate ethnic groups). Getting out of poverty is not that hard if you make the right choices in life:

1) Finish school, don't drop out.
2) Get a job and keep it.
3) Don't have children outside of marriage, and 1) and 2) are satisfied.

The poverty rate of black Americans who followed these 3 simple rules is about 8%. It's 7% for all Americans who follow those same rules. Right now, 75% of black kids are born to single mothers, almost guaranteeing growing up in poverty and having no responsible father to teach them responsibility and work ethic. If black leaders like Obama, Sharpton, Jackson and others truely cared for the well being of black Americans, they should be shouting this message from the rooftops and insisting that the message be repeated at school, at home, in churches etc. But they don't. They don't want to end the cycle of poverty because if the cycle is broken, blacks won't vote 95+% for the party that gives handouts - can't have that. Democrats want to ensure blacks stay poor. Did you know that LBJ had people going house to house in black neighborhoods telling women that if they kicked the man out of the house, the government would give them money? Larry Elder wrote a book about that. They make a lot of noise about racism and oppression when in reality those things are very rare, and they foment a subculture that actually rejects those 3 values.

And BLM is in the middle of it. Look up their guiding principles page on their website - they are actually promoting the idea that ALL mothers should not be married, and that the state should take care of them and the children, and the elderly, leaving young black men to do... what? I don't know, they don't say. But clearly the idea of learning a skill, getting a job and supporting a family ranks at about #684,732 on their list of priorities.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8084
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:28 am

seb146 wrote:
Which is why Australians are allowed to own guns.

With a license, after they prove they have "genuine reason". What happened when they couldn't provide a genuine reason for owning a gun? Let's see, what's the word? Confiscation.

Of course, self defense is not a genuine reason.

seb146 wrote:
Unlike the terrorists at the NRA who watch kids being slaughtered and say "meh..." or watch Christians praying peacefully in their church being slaughtered and say "meh..." or watch college students going to class trying to build a better life for themselves being slaughtered and say "meh..."


So, you're OK with promulgating new laws to simply say..."look, we're doing something". "Meh, we have good intentions, that's all that really matters."

seb146 wrote:
When a convicted felon can buy as many as s/he wants or someone who has a history of violence


Not legally.

seb146 wrote:
But, when those laws can not be enforced because NRA and it's followers scream about the Second Amendment and then watch the massacre of people and their reaction is "meh...", there is a problem there, too.


Exactly which laws does the NRA not want enforced?

seb146 wrote:
terrorists at the NRA


If the NRA are terrorists and to be blamed for the killings, then I guess you believe that the AAA is responsible for the 30,000+ deaths due to vehicle accidents? Or, that the AMA is responsible for the approximately 400,000 deaths from medical errors?

The NRA, like the AAA or the AMA of all those other alphabet groups are advocacy groups...that's all. Their function is to advance their members' concerns.

seb146 wrote:
Felons can buy guns.


Illegally. I've bought at gun shows and have always had a back-ground check. Do you really think that expanding background checks to include all sales will prevent felon from buying a gun on the street? Let me break the news to you, felons break the law.

seb146 wrote:
Obamacare would help that


The PPACA is law. Why isn't it helping? The real problem isn't treating the illness, the problem is information sharing and privacy concerns.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or may not come at all.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22775
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:28 am

fr8mech wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Which is why Australians are allowed to own guns.

With a license, after they prove they have "genuine reason". What happened when they couldn't provide a genuine reason for owning a gun? Let's see, what's the word? Confiscation.

Of course, self defense is not a genuine reason.

seb146 wrote:
Unlike the terrorists at the NRA who watch kids being slaughtered and say "meh..." or watch Christians praying peacefully in their church being slaughtered and say "meh..." or watch college students going to class trying to build a better life for themselves being slaughtered and say "meh..."


So, you're OK with promulgating new laws to simply say..."look, we're doing something". "Meh, we have good intentions, that's all that really matters."


It is better than sucking up to NRA and saying "nothing we can do about it!"

fr8mech wrote:
seb146 wrote:
When a convicted felon can buy as many as s/he wants or someone who has a history of violence


Not legally.

seb146 wrote:
But, when those laws can not be enforced because NRA and it's followers scream about the Second Amendment and then watch the massacre of people and their reaction is "meh...", there is a problem there, too.


Exactly which laws does the NRA not want enforced?


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... s/1894355/

seb146 wrote:
terrorists at the NRA


If the NRA are terrorists and to be blamed for the killings, then I guess you believe that the AAA is responsible for the 30,000+ deaths due to vehicle accidents? Or, that the AMA is responsible for the approximately 400,000 deaths from medical errors?

The NRA, like the AAA or the AMA of all those other alphabet groups are advocacy groups...that's all. Their function is to advance their members' concerns.[/quote]

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. AAA and AMA actually WANT the products they lobby on behalf of to be safer. AAA is NOT out there saying "why the heck do we need all these seat belts and air bags?" and AMA is NOT out there saying "why do we need all this training and sterile equipment?" They see a problem and lobby Congress to fix it.

As opposed to NRA who see a problem and demand Congress ignore it because more guns is the answer.

fr8mech wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Felons can buy guns.


Illegally. I've bought at gun shows and have always had a back-ground check. Do you really think that expanding background checks to include all sales will prevent felon from buying a gun on the street? Let me break the news to you, felons break the law.


In other words: let's just not do anything. What a great answer to a huge problem.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8084
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:40 am

seb146 wrote:
It is better than sucking up to NRA and saying "nothing we can do about it!"


No, it's not. Writing more laws that should not/can not/will not be enforced is a useless, feel-good exercise.

seb146 wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... s/1894355/


Not sure what you're looking at there. The NRA does oppose universal background checks because they would be ineffectual in stopping felons from getting guns, while at the same time making it more difficult and increasing the burden on law-abiding citizens.

So, again I ask you, what current laws does the NRA not want enforced? Wanting to change laws does not mean wanting them not to be enforced. It means that the NRA is doing what its members expect it to do...advocate for them.

seb146 wrote:
WANT the products they lobby on behalf of to be safer.


So does the NRA. Hell, I want a safer gun. One that doesn't explode in my hand. One that fires every time I pull the trigger. One that works when I want it to work and doesn't when I don't.

seb146 wrote:
In other words: let's just not do anything.


Nope. Enforce the laws that are currently on the books, at both the state and federal level. Allow information sharing on mental illness. Address the reasons why so many people are turning to crime/violence.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or may not come at all.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19288
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:16 am

fr8mech wrote:
If the NRA are terrorists and to be blamed for the killings, then I guess you believe that the AAA is responsible for the 30,000+ deaths due to vehicle accidents?


Since so many pro-gun advocates are so keen to compare accidental vehicle deaths with gun deaths (an intellectually bankrupt argument), what is the real issue with law-abiding gun owners requiring a licence, insurance and testing to a reasonable level of competence before they can buy their gun(s)? All I ever hear in response are the usual knee-jerk platitudes and stock phrases. Let's hear a reasoned, logical argument why what's required to legally operate a vehicle shouldn't apply to guns?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8084
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:33 am

scbriml wrote:
what is the real issue with law-abiding gun owners requiring a licence, insurance and testing to a reasonable level of competence before they can buy their gun(s)? All I ever hear in response are the usual knee-jerk platitudes and stock phrases. Let's hear a reasoned, logical argument why what's required to legally operate a vehicle shouldn't apply to guns?


You do not have a constitutional right to a car. You do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

By requiring licensing, insurance and testing, you may be introducing onerous economic hurdles that would prevent an, otherwise, eligible person from exercising his/her Second Amendment rights. In a world where you have to have insurance and training and licensing, in addition to the storage requirements that many on this board would love to see, you make it all but impossible for the poor to exercise their right. Maybe you're ok with only the rich and well-connected being allowed to exercise their rights...I'm not.

Pretty much analogous to the old poll taxes.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or may not come at all.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13389
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:13 am

Republicans should love the idea, then.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
JJJ
Posts: 3766
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:18 am

fr8mech wrote:
scbriml wrote:
what is the real issue with law-abiding gun owners requiring a licence, insurance and testing to a reasonable level of competence before they can buy their gun(s)? All I ever hear in response are the usual knee-jerk platitudes and stock phrases. Let's hear a reasoned, logical argument why what's required to legally operate a vehicle shouldn't apply to guns?


You do not have a constitutional right to a car. You do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


Pick up a stone or a stick from any field. That's an arm you can keep and bear without any license, background check or anything.

Go try to buy an armed fighter jet. You will not be able to unless you're a government defense agency (or a very well-placed contractor).

Even in the US, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It's a matter of drawing the line somewhere.

I've been thinking of finally keeping my old Sarasqueta in the cabinet for good (not selling it though, it was my granfather's) and getting a new Benelli. If I lived in the US should I ask for a rebate or subsidy or something if I only had, say 100$ to spend? Otherwise my rights would be infringed, according to your logic.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19288
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:28 am

fr8mech wrote:
You do not have a constitutional right to a car. You do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


Those sound a bit like stock, cop-out phrases to me. ;)

fr8mech wrote:
By requiring licensing, insurance and testing, you may be introducing onerous economic hurdles that would prevent an, otherwise, eligible person from exercising his/her Second Amendment rights.


Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say there should be no cost? Please don't say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" those rights are infringed today in a number of ways.

Please help me to understand your position. How can licencing, insurance and testing not be a good thing for gun owners?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
HGL
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:29 am

fr8mech wrote:
Mrs. Clinton is in favor of an Australian style gun ban. In case you didn't know, that was a confiscation.

Not entirely true. The Australian gun laws adopted after the Port Arthur killings consisted of several components, including a ban on certain semi-automatic and self-loading rifles. The law on who could import weapons and the types of weapons and/ or parts that could be imported was tightened. Changes were made to procedures for registration of licenses and gun-transactions, including the sale and repair of firearms and the sale of ammunition.

Those who owned other (non-banned type) firearms were legally able to keep them but a buy-back scheme was introduced whereby owners could surrender guns they no longer wished to retain or that were of a type now banned. Many people took advantage of the offer and used the money to buy better firearms.

With the co-operation of the States, laws regarding safe handling and storage were strengthened and the requirement to undergo safety training was introduced. These laws were generally accepted and welcomed by the majority of gun owners as like most people they did not wish to see avoidable deaths or injuries.

There was also a gun amnesty. This applied to those who held unlicensed firearms. Instead of facing prosecution under pre-existing laws, owners could surrender the weapons with no questions being asked.

So we see that the laws adopted by the Australian States and the federal government was not simply confiscation. The irony is that today there are more weapons in circulation than before the Port Arthur massacre and many are of a better quality than those in circulation prior to the changes. Despite that, most Australians feel that they are generally safer.

(For the record: I support the right to gun ownership along with the responsibility that goes with it.)
Qui omnes despicit, omnibus displicit.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:15 pm

scbriml wrote:
Please help me to understand your position. How can licencing, insurance and testing not be a good thing for gun owners?


We keep hammering Seb for an idea which he refuses to provide. He just says "Do SOMETHING" even if it is useless - it allows gun control advocates to feel smug and good about themselves - at least until the next event. It's political masturbation - fun and gratifying short term but in the end pointless and sad.

At least you have a proposal. Licensing can only be constitutional if it is "on demand". Insurance, I am not opposed to that - but what exactly are you insuring? The value of the gun? The chance that it might accidentally go off and go through a neighbor's house? The chance that it gets stolen and used in a crime? I can just see the actuary tables for that sort of insurance being insane. As for testing, I'm assuming you mean training - That's mostly what the NRA does and has been doing since its inception. One the NRA's first mandates was to train former slaves in the 1860s and 70s in the use of firearms to defend themselves against roving bands like the KKK.

But will any of these things have stopped the shootings in Dallas, Baton Rouge, or just yesterday, Kansas City? Kansas City is still a mystery, but at least in the first two, the shooters had clean criminal records, and had plenty of training.

So let's open up the discussion to the criteria that should be used to deny someone the right to own a gun. Right now due process applies as per 5th and 14th amendments - you are on the "deny" list if you are a convicted felon, and you've had your day in court. Do we want to expand that list to other things? I would say yes there is justification to do so, but either Due Process must be satisfied (a judge has to approve each and every entry on that list, based on presentation of probable cause - much like a ware tap warrant - and the process must have a well defined and timely appeals process available for people who find themselves on the list and wish to challenge it), or an Constitutional Amendment must be passed waiving the requirement for due process in certain situations. That amendment would have to be extremely well worded to avoid encroachment of everyone's rights in other fields. So you end up with a choice of adding a due process system to an already overworked judiciary system, or crafting and passing an amendment that everyone will be skeptical of - it will be the first amendment to specifically limit individual rights since Prohibition - and we all know how well that worked.

But let's say that we do pass the amendment. What criteria do we put in?
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3766
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:50 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
At least you have a proposal. Licensing can only be constitutional if it is "on demand". Insurance, I am not opposed to that - but what exactly are you insuring? The value of the gun? The chance that it might accidentally go off and go through a neighbor's house? The chance that it gets stolen and used in a crime? I can just see the actuary tables for that sort of insurance being insane.


That's basically what auto insurance does.

Since lawful use or firearms (target, hunting, etc.) are extremely safe activities, the occasional high-paying accident or mishap will be absorbed through the millions of gun users.

Very few guns are actually stolen from proper cabinets (like the ones I have to keep my guns on by law).

As per whether Euro or Australian-type gun laws would have prevented any of the high-profile shootings you can never tell for sure. Only that the only high-profile massive shooter that actually went through the legal hoops to get guns and explosives was Mr. Breivik, who btw got his high-capacity magazines mailed in from the US who was months or years planning the bomb plus shooting. Most would-be shooters do not have the determination to wait this long.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:28 pm

JJJ wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
At least you have a proposal. Licensing can only be constitutional if it is "on demand". Insurance, I am not opposed to that - but what exactly are you insuring? The value of the gun? The chance that it might accidentally go off and go through a neighbor's house? The chance that it gets stolen and used in a crime? I can just see the actuary tables for that sort of insurance being insane.


That's basically what auto insurance does.

Since lawful use or firearms (target, hunting, etc.) are extremely safe activities, the occasional high-paying accident or mishap will be absorbed through the millions of gun users.


I once had my car stolen. Two weeks later I got a phone call from the cops in another city that my car had been recovered - it had been used in a smash and grab robbery. The car had been used as a battering ram to smash through the front of a store, and then as a getaway car, and abandoned by the thieves outside of town. My insurance (nor I) did not have any liability regarding the damages to the store. As soon as the car (or gun) is out of your hands, your liability ends. However this is predicated that if the lawful owner loses possession of the car (or gun), that the loss is reported, along with serial numbers etc.

JJJ wrote:
Very few guns are actually stolen from proper cabinets (like the ones I have to keep my guns on by law).


I am not against the concept of a national gun registry held by the FBI - which would contain a trace of every gun - Owner, description/model, serial number, Bought From, Sold To information. Every gun owner would be required to report every acquisition or sale. Every gun that leaves a factory/importer would have a trace and last owner. There would be a problem with all the home-made guns that would need to be sorted out - not sure how to deal with that.

Such a system would be great to trace illegal guns - who was the last legitimate owner. If multiple illegal guns are recovered and the same name keeps turning up as the last legitimate owner (whether or not he reported it stolen), you can identify strawman buyers.

But that database will be considered gold by gun control advocates when they inevitably try to ban guns - they know where all the legal owners are. The list can also be leaked to gangs - want a gun? Here's who has a nice stash. Some anti-gun politician recently wanted to have such a registry public and used much like the sex offender database - beware! you have a gun owner in your neighborhood!

So if this is done, you have to keep it by law out of the hands of anti-gun nuts.

JJJ wrote:
As per whether Euro or Australian-type gun laws would have prevented any of the high-profile shootings you can never tell for sure. Only that the only high-profile massive shooter that actually went through the legal hoops to get guns and explosives was Mr. Breivik, who btw got his high-capacity magazines mailed in from the US who was months or years planning the bomb plus shooting. Most would-be shooters do not have the determination to wait this long.


More than 80% of mass shootings in the US, the guns were purchased legally. Only 1% of guns used in a crime were sold at gun shows according to ATF - the vast majority are bought off the street by illegal dealers. THAT is who needs to be tracked down - and the national registry might help to do that. Those are the people supplying 93% of the guns used by gangs, according to ATF.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19288
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:51 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
Licensing can only be constitutional if it is "on demand".


Sorry, help me understand what you mean by "on demand"? If you want to drive a car legally, you need a licence, yes? Why can a similar licence not be required to own a gun?

Dreadnought wrote:
Insurance, I am not opposed to that - but what exactly are you insuring? The value of the gun? The chance that it might accidentally go off and go through a neighbor's house? The chance that it gets stolen and used in a crime?


Gun insurance for all the same reasons you have car insurance. If you injure someone or damage property with your car, your insurance company pays out.

Dreadnought wrote:
As for testing, I'm assuming you mean training


No, I actually mean testing. In exactly the same way one is required to pass a driving test to prove one is sufficiently competent to be left in sole charge of a vehicle. Yes, most people would require some training in order to pass the test.

Dreadnought wrote:
But will any of these things have stopped the shootings in Dallas, Baton Rouge, or just yesterday, Kansas City? Kansas City is still a mystery, but at least in the first two, the shooters had clean criminal records, and had plenty of training.


Well, we can be certain that nothing will change if nothing is done. That's a 100%, cast-iron guarantee. What I'm suggesting are baby steps. Nobody has a solution to solve the problem overnight - it might take decades. But, just because it might be difficult and might take a long time, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Anything that might conceivably improve the situation must be a good thing, no?

Do you agree that America has a huge issue with guns, regardless of the colour or socio-economic situation of the person holding the gun?

While I personally have absolutely no need nor desire to own a gun (and have never been in a situation where I've thought "Wish I had a gun right now!"), I do understand that many in America do. I do really struggle to understand why someone needs to have a gun to go shopping in Walmart.

However, when many pro-gun advocates simply stick their fingers in their ears and yell "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment!" whenever the topic arises, they're simply ignoring the fact that, as it stands, the 2nd Amendment is actually a very poorly worded piece of legislation. Ignoring for a moment the endless debate about "A well regulated militia", the 2nd Amendment says very little. Yet people accept a number of infringements, as far as I can see, without complaint.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22775
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:49 pm

There has been a suggestion put out there that guns should be regulated like cars. Insurance, licencing, testing, etc. But, the howls of objection from gun nuts, NRA, and so on was just so loud because "Second Amendment." Dreadnaught wants a proposal, that has been the proposal. And he hates it because it "infringes on the Second Amendment." Well, so does auto insurance and drivers licences. Autos are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. So, my 10 year old nephew can legally drive a Ferrari. Nothing in the Constitution says he can't. Same logic with guns.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Another Police Ambush: BTR

Wed Jul 20, 2016 6:12 pm

seb146 wrote:
There has been a suggestion put out there that guns should be regulated like cars. Insurance, licencing, testing, etc. But, the howls of objection from gun nuts, NRA, and so on was just so loud because "Second Amendment." Dreadnaught wants a proposal, that has been the proposal. And he hates it because it "infringes on the Second Amendment." Well, so does auto insurance and drivers licences. Autos are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. So, my 10 year old nephew can legally drive a Ferrari. Nothing in the Constitution says he can't. Same logic with guns.


Oh brother...

Read the 9th and 10th amendments. The states are regulating drivers' licences for travel on public roads, not the federal government. Your 10-year old can indeed drive a Ferrari as far as the Federal government and the Constitution is concerned - in absence of any federal mandate in the Constitution to regulate that. But that does not mean that the states are not allowed to regulate it.

And I have said above that I agree with some common sense regulations, and I have put forward a few ideas. My issues are a) how to make such regulations constitutional, b) effective, and c) protected from abuse by ideologue bureaucrats and politicians.

Which is a hell of a lot more than "Just do SOMETHING" which is your limited contribution to the discussion.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: noviorbis77, Virtual737 and 24 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos