CDZ Gun Control

[JQPublic1]

If the police and military have a rifle or pistol...we, as the people who pay for those rifles and pistols get them too....

Do you get portable nukes too?

What CIVILIAN law enforcement agency has them? If you come up with one, then yes, if not, then bugger off you troll.

The post to which I was responding included references to police and to the military, stupid.

 

[JQPublic1]

If the police and military have a rifle or pistol...we, as the people who pay for those rifles and pistols get them too....

Do you get portable nukes too?

So you think only your beloved corporate "gubermint" should have guns? Stupid fucks like you disgust me in ways that I could never adequately express.

Naw,moron, I didn't say anything of the sort. That is the trouble with you RW creeps.You put words in other people's mouths and then take off on a tangent that had nothing to do with what they actually said. Not that it is any of your business but FYI I am a gun advocate and own several. I just don't think people like you need to have semi automatic assault rifles because one of you dumb MFs just might snap at any moment and kill a lot of people.

semi automatic assault rifles

What the hell is that? I've never heard of a "semi automatic assault rifle". As a gun "advocate", one could surmise that you know what the hell you are talking about, looks to me like you do not.

Having retired from the military I think my technical expertise is superior to yours in regards to determining what an assault rifle is. By definition, an assault rifle is one that can be set to fire automatically or semi -automatically. The AR-15 or any other rifle based on a prototype of the M-16 can be easily modified to fire automatically in the hands of a machinist. Therefore the term "assault rile" is not limited to automatic rifles but can be applied to some semi automatic rifles as well. When bastards like you start your revolution, I would almost guarantee the first thing you do is get one of your machinist buddies to convert your AR 15s to fully automatic weapons.


How many of these -'70 and -'80 year modles are out there in the hands of radical Christians like you?

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, items such as the "Drop In Auto Sear" or "lightning link," made conversion to full automatic straightforward. In some cases such conversion did require machining the lower receiver with use of a mill, as well as the substitution of a M16 bolt carrier group.[19][20] Such modifications, unless made using registered and transferable parts prior to May 19, 1986, are illegal. The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 has redefined a machine gun to include individual components with which a semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full-automatic, based on a 1981 ATF ruling on machine gun parts. Since 1993, the bolt carrier groups used in AR-15 type rifles for civilians have employed additional measures to prevent modification to full auto. Colt AR-15's use a metal alloy wall separating the fire control group from the sear, preventing use of full automatic parts.

 

[JQPublic1]

I find your expectations of government being some benevolent benefactor vacuous in it's expectations as compared to reality.

WE ARE the government. If you don't like something run for office instead of running for your AR-15.
Or take your gripes to the ballot box. Hmmm, but the numbers represented by your ilk are declining…Hmmmm. Tuff shit!

it stands to reason that not allowing the civil law enforcement agencies to have any more firepower than what the government allows civilians will make us even more secure since most civil law enforcement officials are white.

Policemen are not "civil" law enforcement, they are either municipal, county or federal officials. They are NOT paid via private funding like security guards. when you learn the difference come on back and tell me you apologize for being an idiot!

I've never stated that civilian fire power of the public should be any more than that of civil law enforcement agencies.
It's you who are adding the military component to this mix.

Perhaps you didn't but one of your butt hole buddies posting here did. In post #27 I referenced that fact!. And stop repeating that "civil" law enforcement nonsense. Cops are paramilitary government employees.

If you don't understand what is being posted then perhaps you should take a reading comprehension course.
As for your savages comment... I'll suggest the true savages are the protestors who show up at Trump rallies who harass and use violence to intimidate people.

Heh heh heh! I understand all too well what is being said. You are the fool that can't see his own foolishness. And brining theTrump protestors in this thread just shows how desperate you are to get away from the arse whupping you are taking! Heh heh heh!

 

[JQPublic1]

I'd say that banning Assault type weapons would make us all more secure.

Those who would trade ANY amount of freedom for an ounce of security, deserve neither. Paraphrased from, I believe, Benjamin Franklin. Not a stupid man, It would appear as though you could learn a thing or two by studying him.

So just how much does an AR-15 weigh? I am sure THAT security weighs more than an ounce. BTW the shooter in the Florida massacre was very secure as he robbed 50 people permanently of their freedom.
HIs freedom trumped theirs. I'd like to reduce the chances of that happening again…YOU DON'T

 

[2aguy]

If the government wants to ban firearms and other equipment then they should lead by example.

If a civilian, or private individual, can not own certain firearms and other equipment then neither can any civil law enforcement agency.

This means only the military can possess and utilize such equipment.

Otherwise if the government feels a need for their civil law enforcement agencies to keep such items in their civil law enforcement armories; this includes agencies like secret service, FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals, etc,...; those same items should be available for purchase to the general public.

After all anyone not part of the military is a civilian and should be treated as such by force of law.

*****SMILE*****

Although I think the logic of your proposal is a bit wobbly, you do bring up an important issue, namely, the militarization of the civilian police force.

Enemy armies are quite easy to find but hard to kill. Enemy terrorists are hard to find but easy to kill. The military style SWAT forces are over-staffed, extremely expensive to maintain and useful only in reaction after the damage has been done.

Intelligence networks and active community relations are critially important and the means to prevent and contain terrorist attacks.

Obviously intelligence networks do not work when they are told that they are not allowed to 'profile', keep intelligence, or do other aspects of their job; and community relations don't work when the community involved decides to be isolated from the rest of the world. In such a case intelligence networks and community relations are worthless and there will be calls for more militarization of the civil law enforcement and SWAT 'late' responders to a situation that in most cases should have been contained prior to it becoming an incident..... It would appear the government has tied itself into a bog of political correctness over the situation. While those law abiding citizens at the scene when the incident is happening need to be armed up so they can respond immediately to the incident. Instead of waiting for a reluctant government to clean up a mess with it's SWAT 'late' responders over an incident that the government created through incompetent management.

Therefore obviously citizens should be allowed to purchase whatever the civil law enforcement agencies are allowed to carry in their armories.

*****SMILE*****

Your premise is overtly puerile as well as shortsighted. Given the dark ominous clouds of RW White male angst, anger and discord forming in the political skies, I'd say that banning Assault type weapons would make us all more secure.By wanting to put civilian firepower on a par with military and police firepower you are advocating a chaotic environment that threatens the rule of law. BTW any good handgun would be as effective in neutralizing a threat within 100 foot and closer radius as a rifle.
Only a seditious Clive Bundy fan would want to give RW savages firepower equal to or superior to the military or police.

Given the actual violence of left wing males, females and lgbtqrtvxyz........at Trump rallies, beating people up......and the other allies of the democrats the muslims who are shooting people left and right...I think Right wing males are the last on your list to worry about....

No.....if you understood history...or events around the world.....allowing the police and military to have guns and disarming the citizens actually leads to mass graves, not the other way around....just ask the Mexican citizens murdered by their own government and the drug cartels who are working together....

 

[JQPublic1]

If the government wants to ban firearms and other equipment then they should lead by example.

If a civilian, or private individual, can not own certain firearms and other equipment then neither can any civil law enforcement agency.

This means only the military can possess and utilize such equipment.

Otherwise if the government feels a need for their civil law enforcement agencies to keep such items in their civil law enforcement armories; this includes agencies like secret service, FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals, etc,...; those same items should be available for purchase to the general public.

After all anyone not part of the military is a civilian and should be treated as such by force of law.

*****SMILE*****

Although I think the logic of your proposal is a bit wobbly, you do bring up an important issue, namely, the militarization of the civilian police force.

Enemy armies are quite easy to find but hard to kill. Enemy terrorists are hard to find but easy to kill. The military style SWAT forces are over-staffed, extremely expensive to maintain and useful only in reaction after the damage has been done.

Intelligence networks and active community relations are critially important and the means to prevent and contain terrorist attacks.

Obviously intelligence networks do not work when they are told that they are not allowed to 'profile', keep intelligence, or do other aspects of their job; and community relations don't work when the community involved decides to be isolated from the rest of the world. In such a case intelligence networks and community relations are worthless and there will be calls for more militarization of the civil law enforcement and SWAT 'late' responders to a situation that in most cases should have been contained prior to it becoming an incident..... It would appear the government has tied itself into a bog of political correctness over the situation. While those law abiding citizens at the scene when the incident is happening need to be armed up so they can respond immediately to the incident. Instead of waiting for a reluctant government to clean up a mess with it's SWAT 'late' responders over an incident that the government created through incompetent management.

Therefore obviously citizens should be allowed to purchase whatever the civil law enforcement agencies are allowed to carry in their armories.

*****SMILE*****

Your premise is overtly puerile as well as shortsighted. Given the dark ominous clouds of RW White male angst, anger and discord forming in the political skies, I'd say that banning Assault type weapons would make us all more secure.By wanting to put civilian firepower on a par with military and police firepower you are advocating a chaotic environment that threatens the rule of law. BTW any good handgun would be as effective in neutralizing a threat within 100 foot and closer radius as a rifle.
Only a seditious Clive Bundy fan would want to give RW savages firepower equal to or superior to the military or police.

Given the actual violence of left wing males, females and lgbtqrtvxyz........at Trump rallies, beating people up......and the other allies of the democrats the muslims who are shooting people left and right...I think Right wing males are the last on your list to worry about....

No.....if you understood history...or events around the world.....allowing the police and military to have guns and disarming the citizens actually leads to mass graves, not the other way around....just ask the Mexican citizens murdered by their own government and the drug cartels who are working together....

Trump's fans started the initial violence at his rallies and his inflammatory rhetoric exacerbated it when protestors continued to come, and were prepared to fight back, Trump encouraged violence and he got it. And yes, RW males top the list of things to worry about because they have the potential to impact my life more than any muslim or Trump protestor would.

Muslims: Muslims are not liberals. Their's is the harshest kind of conservatism…almost as Draconian as yours. Just because one muslim, the shooter, was purported to be a registered democrat you use that to "liberalize" the most conservative group of people on the planet. How dumb can you be?

Disarming the citizens? There you go lying on me again. Banning the AR-15 for public use is not disarming citizens. But I do see your fear. A major shift in demographics is right around the corner and you want to be ready to defend the last vestiges of "whiteness" against the governmental layers that you feel have betrayed you. You have lost faith in a darkened America and you fear what is coming! I understand…. and you have my sympathies… I fear it too! But an AR 15 or two won't help.

 

[PredFan]

If the police and military have a rifle or pistol...we, as the people who pay for those rifles and pistols get them too....

Do you get portable nukes too?

No, of course not, those are bombs not guns. Bombs are not protected by the 2A

 

[Damaged Eagle]

WE ARE the government. If you don't like something run for office instead of running for your AR-15.
Or take your gripes to the ballot box. Hmmm, but the numbers represented by your ilk are declining…Hmmmm. Tuff shit!

No need. My OP suggests the solution to the progressive problem. Make the government lead by example.

I'm perfectly willing to watch the police and other civil law enforcement officials be limited to night sticks and tasers if progressives like you wish to push this gun control thingee.

Just think of all the black lives that would be saved because those oppressive police not being able to shoot them for lack of a service revolver.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Policemen are not "civil" law enforcement, they are either municipal, county or federal officials. They are NOT paid via private funding like security guards. when you learn the difference come on back and tell me you apologize for being an idiot!

I'm not going to play semantics with you.

For the purpose of this discussion 'civil law enforcement' refers to individuals working in any public capacity who routinely carry a firearm in performance of their job who are not military.

Perhaps you didn't but one of your butt hole buddies posting here did. In post #27 I referenced that fact!

Then take it up with that individual.

And stop repeating that "civil" law enforcement nonsense.

Already covered above it's my thread if you don't like the term and how I use it start your own thread.

Cops are paramilitary government employees.

Do they report to the Joint Chiefs? NO! So they are not military.

Heh heh heh! I understand all too well what is being said.

I don't think you do.

You are the fool that can't see his own foolishness.

The fact that you require an insult like this indicates I'm on the right track and that you fear the results.

And brining theTrump protestors in this thread just shows how desperate you are to get away from the arse whupping you are taking! Heh heh heh!

Or that it's proof of the fear that you're revealing about yourself with the abusive statements you've decided to utilize in this thread and that you are no better than the abusive protestors that progressives like you represent and support.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Nosmo King]

If the police and military have a rifle or pistol...we, as the people who pay for those rifles and pistols get them too....

Do you get portable nukes too?

no...those would be crew served weapons.....rifles and pistols are personal weapons of soldiers.....

Should civilians have bazookas, rocket propelled grenade launchers, mortars, howitzers? These are weapons capable of being loaded, aimed and fired by an individual.

 

[JQPublic1]

If the police and military have a rifle or pistol...we, as the people who pay for those rifles and pistols get them too....

Do you get portable nukes too?

No, of course not, those are bombs not guns. Bombs are not protected by the 2A

I guess that depends on how you interpret the word "arms." Iin any case we pay for those too so by RW 2aguy's logic, we should own them too.

 

[PredFan]

If the police and military have a rifle or pistol...we, as the people who pay for those rifles and pistols get them too....

Do you get portable nukes too?

No, of course not, those are bombs not guns. Bombs are not protected by the 2A

I guess that depends on how you interpret the word "arms." Iin any case we pay for those too so by RW 2aguy's logic, we should own them too.

2aguy know two important things:
1. That the 2A doesn't protect bombs
2. That a bomb is not a defensive weapon.

He assumed that you would know them as well.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The next post in this thread that violates the CDZ rules will result in an infraction, and a thread-ban.

Knock it off.

 

[PredFan]

If the police and military have a rifle or pistol...we, as the people who pay for those rifles and pistols get them too....

Do you get portable nukes too?

no...those would be crew served weapons.....rifles and pistols are personal weapons of soldiers.....

Should civilians have bazookas, rocket propelled grenade launchers, mortars, howitzers? These are weapons capable of being loaded, aimed and fired by an individual.

Yes, why not? If you can afford one. I would love to have a bazooka. I doubt that there is a range that would allow me to shoot it though so, what is the point? Rocket propelled grenade launcher? Why not? Same deal with the ranges. Same with mortars and howitzers. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be able to have one? It wouldn't be a smart purchase though.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It would appear that some people who wish to legislate gun control to the law abiding private citizen would like to derail my thread.

Looks like it's time that those of us who like our firearms to do a little lobbying to ensure all 'civil law enforcement' agencies comply with the laws of the land on firearms in the hands of civilians vice military, just as they require of all of us law abiding citizens.

*****SMILE*****

 

[PredFan]

Unfortunately, that would cause the police to be out gunned in many situations.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If the police feel a need for such firepower then obviously I too need that type of firepower available.

Governments are not known for their benevolence when they have absolute power over a person.

Additionally after the attempted derailment of my thread and the abuse of the recent poster...

*****SMILE*****

 

[PredFan]

If the police feel a need for such firepower then obviously I too need that type of firepower available.

Governments are not known for their benevolence when they have absolute power over a person.

Additionally after the attempted derailment of my thread and the abuse of the recent poster...

*****SMILE*****

You can't argue with that.

 

[2aguy]

If the government wants to ban firearms and other equipment then they should lead by example.

If a civilian, or private individual, can not own certain firearms and other equipment then neither can any civil law enforcement agency.

This means only the military can possess and utilize such equipment.

Otherwise if the government feels a need for their civil law enforcement agencies to keep such items in their civil law enforcement armories; this includes agencies like secret service, FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals, etc,...; those same items should be available for purchase to the general public.

After all anyone not part of the military is a civilian and should be treated as such by force of law.

*****SMILE*****

Although I think the logic of your proposal is a bit wobbly, you do bring up an important issue, namely, the militarization of the civilian police force.

Enemy armies are quite easy to find but hard to kill. Enemy terrorists are hard to find but easy to kill. The military style SWAT forces are over-staffed, extremely expensive to maintain and useful only in reaction after the damage has been done.

Intelligence networks and active community relations are critially important and the means to prevent and contain terrorist attacks.

Obviously intelligence networks do not work when they are told that they are not allowed to 'profile', keep intelligence, or do other aspects of their job; and community relations don't work when the community involved decides to be isolated from the rest of the world. In such a case intelligence networks and community relations are worthless and there will be calls for more militarization of the civil law enforcement and SWAT 'late' responders to a situation that in most cases should have been contained prior to it becoming an incident..... It would appear the government has tied itself into a bog of political correctness over the situation. While those law abiding citizens at the scene when the incident is happening need to be armed up so they can respond immediately to the incident. Instead of waiting for a reluctant government to clean up a mess with it's SWAT 'late' responders over an incident that the government created through incompetent management.

Therefore obviously citizens should be allowed to purchase whatever the civil law enforcement agencies are allowed to carry in their armories.

*****SMILE*****

Your premise is overtly puerile as well as shortsighted. Given the dark ominous clouds of RW White male angst, anger and discord forming in the political skies, I'd say that banning Assault type weapons would make us all more secure.By wanting to put civilian firepower on a par with military and police firepower you are advocating a chaotic environment that threatens the rule of law. BTW any good handgun would be as effective in neutralizing a threat within 100 foot and closer radius as a rifle.
Only a seditious Clive Bundy fan would want to give RW savages firepower equal to or superior to the military or police.

Given the actual violence of left wing males, females and lgbtqrtvxyz........at Trump rallies, beating people up......and the other allies of the democrats the muslims who are shooting people left and right...I think Right wing males are the last on your list to worry about....

No.....if you understood history...or events around the world.....allowing the police and military to have guns and disarming the citizens actually leads to mass graves, not the other way around....just ask the Mexican citizens murdered by their own government and the drug cartels who are working together....

Trump's fans started the initial violence at his rallies and his inflammatory rhetoric exacerbated it when protestors continued to come, and were prepared to fight back, Trump encouraged violence and he got it. And yes, RW males top the list of things to worry about because they have the potential to impact my life more than any muslim or Trump protestor would.

Muslims: Muslims are not liberals. Their's is the harshest kind of conservatism…almost as Draconian as yours. Just because one muslim, the shooter, was purported to be a registered democrat you use that to "liberalize" the most conservative group of people on the planet. How dumb can you be?

Disarming the citizens? There you go lying on me again. Banning the AR-15 for public use is not disarming citizens. But I do see your fear. A major shift in demographics is right around the corner and you want to be ready to defend the last vestiges of "whiteness" against the governmental layers that you feel have betrayed you. You have lost faith in a darkened America and you fear what is coming! I understand…. and you have my sympathies… I fear it too! But an AR 15 or two won't help.

Wrong...one old man hit a moron protestor....

Bernie and hilary supporters are bussed in, organized and attack in groups...they are paid and trained and organized.

Muslims are the pets of democrats..they see them as a big new voting block.......and since radical muslims hate the west and America, they are democrat fellow travellers.......

Blacks and women are the biggest growth sector in the gun industry....and that is a good thing...too long they have looked at democrats....who allow these inner city hell holes to murder young black men as their protectors...

Gays are going to be the next biggest growth sector in the gun industry too.....

 

[2aguy]

If the government wants to ban firearms and other equipment then they should lead by example.

If a civilian, or private individual, can not own certain firearms and other equipment then neither can any civil law enforcement agency.

This means only the military can possess and utilize such equipment.

Otherwise if the government feels a need for their civil law enforcement agencies to keep such items in their civil law enforcement armories; this includes agencies like secret service, FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals, etc,...; those same items should be available for purchase to the general public.

After all anyone not part of the military is a civilian and should be treated as such by force of law.

*****SMILE*****

Although I think the logic of your proposal is a bit wobbly, you do bring up an important issue, namely, the militarization of the civilian police force.

Enemy armies are quite easy to find but hard to kill. Enemy terrorists are hard to find but easy to kill. The military style SWAT forces are over-staffed, extremely expensive to maintain and useful only in reaction after the damage has been done.

Intelligence networks and active community relations are critially important and the means to prevent and contain terrorist attacks.

Obviously intelligence networks do not work when they are told that they are not allowed to 'profile', keep intelligence, or do other aspects of their job; and community relations don't work when the community involved decides to be isolated from the rest of the world. In such a case intelligence networks and community relations are worthless and there will be calls for more militarization of the civil law enforcement and SWAT 'late' responders to a situation that in most cases should have been contained prior to it becoming an incident..... It would appear the government has tied itself into a bog of political correctness over the situation. While those law abiding citizens at the scene when the incident is happening need to be armed up so they can respond immediately to the incident. Instead of waiting for a reluctant government to clean up a mess with it's SWAT 'late' responders over an incident that the government created through incompetent management.

Therefore obviously citizens should be allowed to purchase whatever the civil law enforcement agencies are allowed to carry in their armories.

*****SMILE*****

Your premise is overtly puerile as well as shortsighted. Given the dark ominous clouds of RW White male angst, anger and discord forming in the political skies, I'd say that banning Assault type weapons would make us all more secure.By wanting to put civilian firepower on a par with military and police firepower you are advocating a chaotic environment that threatens the rule of law. BTW any good handgun would be as effective in neutralizing a threat within 100 foot and closer radius as a rifle.
Only a seditious Clive Bundy fan would want to give RW savages firepower equal to or superior to the military or police.

Given the actual violence of left wing males, females and lgbtqrtvxyz........at Trump rallies, beating people up......and the other allies of the democrats the muslims who are shooting people left and right...I think Right wing males are the last on your list to worry about....

No.....if you understood history...or events around the world.....allowing the police and military to have guns and disarming the citizens actually leads to mass graves, not the other way around....just ask the Mexican citizens murdered by their own government and the drug cartels who are working together....

Trump's fans started the initial violence at his rallies and his inflammatory rhetoric exacerbated it when protestors continued to come, and were prepared to fight back, Trump encouraged violence and he got it. And yes, RW males top the list of things to worry about because they have the potential to impact my life more than any muslim or Trump protestor would.

Muslims: Muslims are not liberals. Their's is the harshest kind of conservatism…almost as Draconian as yours. Just because one muslim, the shooter, was purported to be a registered democrat you use that to "liberalize" the most conservative group of people on the planet. How dumb can you be?

Disarming the citizens? There you go lying on me again. Banning the AR-15 for public use is not disarming citizens. But I do see your fear. A major shift in demographics is right around the corner and you want to be ready to defend the last vestiges of "whiteness" against the governmental layers that you feel have betrayed you. You have lost faith in a darkened America and you fear what is coming! I understand…. and you have my sympathies… I fear it too! But an AR 15 or two won't help.

And apparently, the shooter was a registered democrat....

 

[2aguy]

If the police and military have a rifle or pistol...we, as the people who pay for those rifles and pistols get them too....

Do you get portable nukes too?

no...those would be crew served weapons.....rifles and pistols are personal weapons of soldiers.....

Should civilians have bazookas, rocket propelled grenade launchers, mortars, howitzers? These are weapons capable of being loaded, aimed and fired by an individual.

Wrong.....they are not personal weapons of the individual infantry soldier, rifles and pistols are.

I set my limits on what an individual police officer or soldier carries....rifles and pistols.....if they carry it, we carry it.....that is how you stop mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide.....

Ask the Mexicans across our border in the AutoDefensas if it is a good idea for only the police and military to have rifles....since the Mexican police and military are the allies of the drug cartels who have been murdering Mexican civilians in the 10s of thousands every year.......