Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[QuickHitCurepon]

That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed. Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

When there is a gun in a household, does that mean that anyone who picks up that gun who lives in the house, for example, to move it to a safer location, safe from children, would be guilty of a crime, because they are not licensed? There is no law that requires all guns to be locked up or hidden.

 

[martybegan]

No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit. You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board. Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me. Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.

You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others. Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.

And that's where your "guns for me and not for thee" mentaility comes it. Tell me, if we banned private gun ownership, would you be willing to leave your sidearm at the precinct, and be disarmed like the rest of us when you are off-duty?

Be real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).

I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed. Never have, never will.

I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check. Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history, work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job. Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job. Someone in HR fucked up).

That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed. Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.

Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk.

and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least.

The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed. Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

When there is a gun in a household, does that mean that anyone who picks up that gun who lives in the house, for example, to move it to a safer location, safe from children, would be guilty of a crime, because they are not licensed? There is no law that requires all guns to be locked up or hidden.

Better check you local/state laws on securing a firearm.

 

[Spoonman]

No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit. You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board. Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me. Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.

You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others. Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.

And that's where your "guns for me and not for thee" mentaility comes it. Tell me, if we banned private gun ownership, would you be willing to leave your sidearm at the precinct, and be disarmed like the rest of us when you are off-duty?

Be real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).

I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed. Never have, never will.

I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check. Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history, work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job. Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job. Someone in HR fucked up).

That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed. Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.

yet we have the fort hood masacre, the ex cop in CA killings, the Navy killer. all back ground checked all mass killers. seems like back ground checked people are killing more than non back ground checked

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed. Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

When there is a gun in a household, does that mean that anyone who picks up that gun who lives in the house, for example, to move it to a safer location, safe from children, would be guilty of a crime, because they are not licensed? There is no law that requires all guns to be locked up or hidden.

Better check you local/state laws on securing a firearm.

So you're saying that I can't keep a gun under my pillow? Also, answer my question.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And that's where your "guns for me and not for thee" mentaility comes it. Tell me, if we banned private gun ownership, would you be willing to leave your sidearm at the precinct, and be disarmed like the rest of us when you are off-duty?

Be real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).

I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed. Never have, never will.

I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check. Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history, work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job. Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job. Someone in HR fucked up).

That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed. Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun. Oh, I almost forgot, I also taught at the academy.

As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.

Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk.

and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least.

The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.

Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law) - laws of arrest and firearms training - plus dept. policies including use of force; and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.

I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA. Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked. Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Be real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).

I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed. Never have, never will.

I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check. Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history, work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job. Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job. Someone in HR fucked up).

That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed. Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.

Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk.

and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least.

The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.

Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law), laws of arrest and firearms training plus dept. policies including use of force; and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.

I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA. Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked. Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.

Maybe that's just it. You are too close to the problem to have enough common sense to be the least bit practical.

 

[Ernie S.]

Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.

Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.

After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.

A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.

I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.

Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?

 

[martybegan]

Be real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).

I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed. Never have, never will.

I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check. Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history, work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job. Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job. Someone in HR fucked up).

That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed. Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun. Oh, I almost forgot, I also taught at the academy.

As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.

Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk.

and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least.

The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.

Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law), laws of arrest and firearms training plus dept. policies including use of force; and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.

I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA. Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked. Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.

Its that "Im better than you because I used to be a cop" attitude that pisses people off so much. This isnt about the actual mechanics of the training, its about how we give police certain abilities to perform, that if performed by anyone else would be considered assault, kidnapping and a host of other crimes.

You are so full of yourself over your training and your desired "special" status of being a LEO that you forget your original role and purpose, which is to keep us from having to take the law into our own hands, not to lord over us like some medival knights.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.

After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.

A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.

I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.

Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?

Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.

I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.

Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?

Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

Why don't you also keep track of every gun used in a crime and trace it to the current owners too, idiot?

 

[Steven_R]

Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

There it is folks.

 

[P@triot]

A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.

I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.

Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?

Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

"People Control" seems "rational" to you?!? Really? Ok - 'nough said. Thanks Saddam...

 

[P@triot]

A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.

I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.

I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.

The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.

No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit. You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board. Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me. Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.

You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others. Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.

Then you should know that the only solution is to make sure law abiding citizens are armed.

No guns used here chief - just another stabbing victim (who obviously doesn't matter in your world as I don't see you calling to outlaw knives):

 

[Spoonman]

A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.

I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.

Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?

Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

and the navy yard killing is a graphic example of how back ground checks fail to stop the problem

 

[Ernie S.]

A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.

I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.

Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?

Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
Why do you dismiss THEM?
Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.

 

[kaz]

Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

Strawman. No one is saying that deaths are the price of freedom. We're saying your gun laws are increasing the deaths because shooters know they won't get shot back at. It's your restricting freedom that's causing more death, not our avocation of freedom.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

There it is folks.

You're correct, thanks for biting. The point being - and which went way over your head - is that gun control, i.e. licensing and laws on gun running, only effects those who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun. It also won't deprive anyone of their right under the Second Amendment, if they are not felons or child molesters, drunks or drug addicts, mentally ill or violent misdemeanants - characteristics that all sane citizens understand should not own, possess or ever have in their custody or control a gun.

Licensing will have no impact on the citizen who has chosen not to own, possess or ever have in his/her custody and control a gun. There it is!

 

[kaz]

Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?

Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
Why do you dismiss THEM?
Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.

Dead on, Ernie. Pun intended. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. All the left are doing is maximizing the carnage. They should be so proud.

 

[Spoonman]

Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

There it is folks.

You're correct, thanks for biting. The point being - and which went way over your head - is that gun control, i.e. licensing and laws on gun running, only effects those who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun. It also won't deprive anyone of their right under the Second Amendment, if they are not felons or child molesters, drunks or drug addicts, mentally ill or violent misdemeanants - characteristics that all sane citizens understand should not own, possess or ever have in their custody or control a gun.

Licensing will have no impact on the citizen who has chosen not to own, possess or ever have in his/her custody and control a gun. There it is!

so i guess what you are trying to imply is that no registered guns kill people?