CDZ Gun Control

[Damaged Eagle]

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*****

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I don't disagree, though, they are also kinda trying to disarm police, too.

 

[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....

 

[Dale Smith]

Death by Democide (government) has killed over 260 million people since 1900 that had no opportunity to defend themselves...leftards and liberals (which are communists at heart) want us to be just that vulnerable and they will stoop to any dirty, low down trick including false flag and staged events to bring it about.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I don't disagree, though, they are also kinda trying to disarm police, too.

If the government feels the need for more firepower on American soil they can always call out the military... I'm not so sure that will work out so well for them though.

I stand by my opening OP that whatever civil law enforcement can possess in their arsenals should be available to the general public. If civil law enforcement feels it requires heavy fire power because of the bad guys out there then I as a private law abiding citizen must need it also. I will not have a standing army of civil public employees who are equipped better than the citizens they are supposed to protect and who do not answer to the military on United States soil.

*****SMILE*****

 

[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?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

Only if you're firing them at California.

 

[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.....

 

[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...those would be crew served weapons.....rifles and pistols are personal weapons of soldiers.....

It doesn't take a crew to launch a portable nuke or to use a LAW or TOW missile or to operate a drone outfitted with anything your imagination can come up with. I would not want any of those things in the hands of civilians.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

If you are attempting to highjack my thread through abuse and/or have it sent to the Flame Zone with this type of trolling behavior I guarantee I will not be very appreciative of your actions.

In doing so it only strengthens my resolve to have all civil public servants conform to the laws that our government expects it's citizens to follow.

*****SMILE*****

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

One cannot expect ‘clean debate’ when the thread premise fails as a straw man fallacy.

‘The government’ doesn’t want to ‘ban’ guns.

In fact, ‘the government’ cannot ‘ban’ guns – to do so would be un-Constitutional, a violation of the Second Amendment.

Likewise with ‘confiscating’ guns – illegal, un-Constitutional, never going to happen.

This sort of rhetoric is pointless and counter-productive – it’s a ridiculous distraction from the real issue, and it does nothing to find actual, viable solutions to the problem of gun violence which comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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

One cannot expect ‘clean debate’ when the thread premise fails as a straw man fallacy.

‘The government’ doesn’t want to ‘ban’ guns.

In fact, ‘the government’ cannot ‘ban’ guns – to do so would be un-Constitutional, a violation of the Second Amendment.

Likewise with ‘confiscating’ guns – illegal, un-Constitutional, never going to happen.

It doesn't conform to any fallacy.

It requires the government to conform to the laws they require of all non-military citizens.

This sort of rhetoric is pointless and counter-productive – it’s a ridiculous distraction from the real issue, and it does nothing to find actual, viable solutions to the problem of gun violence which comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

If you want to do something about gun violence then enforce the laws on the books and punish the criminals who perpetrate them without pardon, even by the president, when they commit the crime.

Let's start with making public all records involving The Fast And The Furious Program and the people involved.

*****SMILE*****

 

[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.....

It doesn't take a crew to launch a portable nuke or to use a LAW or TOW missile or to operate a drone outfitted with anything your imagination can come up with. I would not want any of those things in the hands of civilians.

A portable nuke......not the standard issue infantry rifle or pistol....and yes..the TOW missle is vehicle mounted....the law.....not standard issue rifle or pistol.......allow me to clarify that...

 

[Fishlore]

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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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*****

 

[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.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Your premise is overtly puerile as well as shortsighted.

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

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

Then 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.

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.

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.

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.

*****CHUCKLE*****