Do you ever wonder if Gun Control Advocates lurk or even sign up on Gun Forums?

[Drm50]

No laws are perfect, there will always be those unlucky souls who fall through a crack. It seems these type for some reason keep finding the cracks. As far as felons, I don’t want them to have guns. Citizens have contract with society.
Society passes laws. You break the public trust you aren’t trustworthy.

 

[ladder13]

Now we know for sure.

 

[Deke Thornton]

There is just something "off" about their writing that seems to be a bit mechanical, with complex sentence structures and a lack of things that humans do (misspellings, inappropriate selections of words, colloquialisms, etc.). In other words, it is too good, kind of like the computer has read an English grammar textbook.

Have we really gotten to the point where being able to spell and write coherent sentences is so unusual that it seems suspicious?

Heckfire, I ain't sayin' thet they ain't no AI her nowheres but it aint like nun of us finishd skool or nuthin.

...and I'm sure there are AI engines specifically programmed to drop the occasional mispelling or other mistakes to seem genuine.

Fears of AI are just paranoina, there's nothing

no 1773 44 dhjksdg skjbwet ooioisdoij 9823455 run:script error propaganda protocol 7248

to fear from technology!

 

[Rust E. Badge]

Not sure I agree. One example is the 4th; it requires warrants for arrest, search & seizure, but the overwhelming majority of arrests, searches & seizures are done without warrants. Another example is the 8th and excessive bail - if your state still requires bail, have a look at your local bond schedule - almost no one can post bail in such amounts and have resort to using bail bondsman.

There are many more examples.

Sir, you are correct that most arrests are made with no judicial paperwork "in-hand" by the officer at the time of restraint and the 4th does not require it. These are 4Ad exceptions where an officer must take action, under particular and specific information, because the offender or evidence is presently in front of him and would escape or be destroyed/moved/hidden if the officer left to speak to a magistrate. If the officer seizes the person or evidence under a 4th exception, he must immediate seek a warrant from a magistrate without undue delay. The warrant provision is not ignored as you suggest. Imagine if an officer witnesses or had sufficient evidence to believe that a person he was talking to had raped and murdered your wife but he left to seek a warrant from a magistrate without restraining the suspect. I doubt the suspect would wait around for the officer to return with the warrants. Justice would fail without the 4th exception. If the judge/magistrate dis-agrees with the officers finding, then the restraint immediately ends. This is exactly the protection our Founders intended. No arrests are made without judicial review.

 

[dockmurgw]

Doesn’t help that they’re the ones loudly demanding more access to more firepower and more places with less training, less vetting and less responsibility.

You mean like the volunteer peacekeeper that took out innocent bystanders in Salt Lake, the one you defended and justified in another thread? You make a blanket statement in this thread that felons should be banned from owning guns. Muss calls you on that statement and you start backpedaling and never did answer his questions. You are a very conflicted person, if your goal here is to agitate, which it obviously is, you should at least look up the definition of C-O-N-S-I-S-T-E-N-C-Y.

 

[Rust E. Badge]

Legally owned machine guns, suppressors have never been a crime issue, it just doesn't happen. It rarely happens that an illegal firearm is utilized in a crime except in certain areas of larger cities where the terrorists/inhabitant thugs want to subjugate their neighbors with terrorism. Many of these areas do not have a "police presence". In the case of illegal firearms a "law" means NOTHING, killing an individual means NOTHING, killing random neighbors means NOTHING.

As a retired professional police officer with 14-years as a detective, I must disagree regarding illegal firearms usage during commission of crimes. The majority of firearms recovered from crime scenes or used by criminals are stolen (illegal). Most criminals are fearful of our laws (which is why they act in darkness, run from police, etc) but are willing to risk capture/arrest because the consequences don't often deter involvement. Going to jail is part of the cost of being a criminal. I apologize if I misconstrued your comments.

 

[Bozz10mm]

It is a dangerous fantasy to think criminals obey our laws, and more dangerous when the people in power use that fantasy to disarm honest men and women. Sometimes your freedom is not taken away at gunpoint, but instead it’s done one piece of paper at a time, one seemingly meaningless rule at a time. The firearms of the time were flintlock, smoothbore muskets often referred to as primitive arms in today’s world. However, these muskets were high technology in their time, representing the best the industry had to offer. The authors of the constitution intended the people to have access to the same equipment and readiness as the government to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. The leaders of the new country wanted the citizenry to have ownership of the same tools as a standing army. Weapons of war in civilian hands are literally the entire point of the 2nd amendment. The actions by gun control groups, Democratic lawmakers shaming companies for not doing their gun control bidding and the ATF overreaching its authority on the pistol brace Final Rule are a pattern. It shows the goal is not to hold criminals accountable. It’s about controlling law-abiding Americans.

 

[Smoke]

But none go so far as to ban, license, background check, register, or wait period them.

Yet

 

[biku324]

Sir, you are correct that most arrests are made with no judicial paperwork "in-hand" by the officer at the time of restraint and the 4th does not require it. These are 4Ad exceptions where an officer must take action, under particular and specific information, because the offender or evidence is presently in front of him and would escape or be destroyed/moved/hidden if the officer left to speak to a magistrate. If the officer seizes the person or evidence under a 4th exception, he must immediate seek a warrant from a magistrate without undue delay. The warrant provision is not ignored as you suggest. Imagine if an officer witnesses or had sufficient evidence to believe that a person he was talking to had raped and murdered your wife but he left to seek a warrant from a magistrate without restraining the suspect. I doubt the suspect would wait around for the officer to return with the warrants. Justice would fail without the 4th exception. If the judge/magistrate dis-agrees with the officers finding, then the restraint immediately ends. This is exactly the protection our Founders intended. No arrests are made without judicial review.

The point is that the 4th says nothing at all about warrantless arrest, search & seizure. If you apply the same literalism to the 4th that some try to the 2nd, then nearly all arrests, searches & seizures would be illegal.

The same is true for the different topics in the 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th, and really obviously in the 7th. And only the 2nd has no room for interpretation? Really?

 

[Deke Thornton]

It is a dangerous fantasy to think criminals obey our laws, and more dangerous when the people in power use that fantasy to disarm honest men and women. Sometimes your freedom is not taken away at gunpoint, but instead it’s done one piece of paper at a time, one seemingly meaningless rule at a time. The firearms of the time were flintlock, smoothbore muskets often referred to as primitive arms in today’s world. However, these muskets were high technology in their time, representing the best the industry had to offer. The authors of the constitution intended the people to have access to the same equipment and readiness as the government to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. The leaders of the new country wanted the citizenry to have ownership of the same tools as a standing army. Weapons of war in civilian hands are literally the entire point of the 2nd amendment. The actions by gun control groups, Democratic lawmakers shaming companies for not doing their gun control bidding and the ATF overreaching its authority on the pistol brace Final Rule are a pattern. It shows the goal is not to hold criminals accountable. It’s about controlling law-abiding Americans.

I grew up in a small New England town that was burned to the ground by natives during King Phillip's War in 1675. When that happened, the nearest regular militia was about an hour away by horseback (once they'd been alerted, which would have taken another hour for a rider to reach them). Under those circumstances, it made absolute sense for each citizen to have a weapon with which to form a local militia for the common defense.

The United States is a very different place today. While it is true that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away," I'm not concerned about the Narragansetts coming to burn the town down again. The threats faced by modern Americans are different than the ones faced by colonists when the Bill Of Rights was written, and the Founders understood that a mechanism was needed to modify the Constitution in the future as needed. Is there a compelling reason for private citizens in 2025 to own small arms? I would say yes, absolutely. Is there a need for them to own select fire weapons, grenade launchers and mortars? I think that can be honestly debated.

 

[jschmidt]

None of my non-shooter friends would spend more than three minutes here. The stuff people say and believe here sounds crazy to most people and the uninformed bile that gets said about liberals would be offensive to anyone. Clearly, I am your only contact with liberals.

And the content just isn't that interesting for someone who doesn't doesn't shoot modern guns. In my observation, of the 40% (known) of liberals who own guns (before Jan6) most own modern rifles and striker-fired pistols. Parsing revolver specs and serials? You won't find anyone who is interested in that.

Don't worry, we've created our own little world here and no one wants to listen in.

 

[bedwards]

Rocketmedic40, I hope I'm gone before all you want is made law. All you are espousing is the same garbage the left has ever since I can remember. What was right is left and what was left is right. I was a staunch Democrat once. Will not go back. Sorry, I don't have time or the help to create a word salad as you do. I'm pretty sure I have seen you post on another board. Either your getting your material from some group or something else. I don't understand why you're allowed to continue to stir anger on this board. I come here for like minded people I enjoy talking to. I wouldn't give you 5 seconds if I met you.

 

[Airdale26]

The Clinton AWB was actually put together to take advantage of existing federal regulations regarding imported firearms (targeted at Chinese assault rifles originally); Democrats used them as a blueprint for the unpopular and functionally-useless 1994 AWB because they had already given up hope for a more comprehensive ban and knew that anything beyond cosmetics was unlikely to survive judicial review. The authors of the bill knew it, their politicians parroted things like “the shoulder thing that goes up” because American democracy sometimes puts the dumbest, least-qualified people in charge of legislating real, consequential things and they sometimes choose dumb words and dumb ideas to explain what they’re expressing.

What value can be obtained from listening in on such discussionS. A lot !!!

 

[Rocketmedic40]

I grew up in a small New England town that was burned to the ground by natives during King Phillip's War in 1675. When that happened, the nearest regular militia was about an hour away by horseback (once they'd been alerted, which would have taken another hour for a rider to reach them). Under those circumstances, it made absolute sense for each citizen to have a weapon with which to form a local militia for the common defense.

The United States is a very different place today. While it is true that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away," I'm not concerned about the Narragansetts coming to burn the town down again. The threats faced by modern Americans are different than the ones faced by colonists when the Bill Of Rights was written, and the Founders understood that a mechanism was needed to modify the Constitution in the future as needed. Is there a compelling reason for private citizens in 2025 to own small arms? I would say yes, absolutely. Is there a need for them to own select fire weapons, grenade launchers and mortars? I think that can be honestly debated.

“Why can’t I have a Stinger/Javelin/TOW?” is, to me, the ultimate expression of 2A absolutism. A little closer on that line we’ve got crew-served weapons and then modern infantry combat rifles.
The terrifying reality is that some weapons are literally solely designed to kill a lot of people in combat situations really efficiently. They’re literally designed to work well in austere environments with lots of rounds fired with low recoil and a high degree of accuracy at realistic combat ranges.

Didn’t catch on at first with civilians, but they’ve been glorified and (ineffectively) banned into success as a fashion symbol for self-styled “patriots”. And if we’re being intellectually honest with ourselves, we all know it.

I’m not claiming we should ban all ARs or do loony Uber-Democrat stuff, but I am pointing out that intellectual honesty also involves taking a hard look at ourselves, our viewpoints and our interests and collections and how we got here. How many of those AR-for-all marketing initiatives were actually about protecting people vs securing funding for gun companies?

 

[Rocketmedic40]

You mean like the volunteer peacekeeper that took out innocent bystanders in Salt Lake, the one you defended and justified in another thread? You make a blanket statement in this thread that felons should be banned from owning guns. Muss calls you on that statement and you start backpedaling and never did answer his questions. You are a very conflicted person, if your goal here is to agitate, which it obviously is, you should at least look up the definition of C-O-N-S-I-S-T-E-N-C-Y.

I’m 100% certain those voluntary guardians aren’t demanding more access to more guns for more people right now, sir. In fact, I’m pretty sure they’re asking themselves and society why someone with clear mental illness and hate in their heart and a temperament stirred to nearly perform a mass killing was able to get an AR.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

Rocketmedic40, I hope I'm gone before all you want is made law. All you are espousing is the same garbage the left has ever since I can remember. What was right is left and what was left is right. I was a staunch Democrat once. Will not go back. Sorry, I don't have time or the help to create a word salad as you do. I'm pretty sure I have seen you post on another board. Either your getting your material from some group or something else. I don't understand why you're allowed to continue to stir anger on this board. I come here for like minded people I enjoy talking to. I wouldn't give you 5 seconds if I met you.

What a pleasant, open-minded person! He’s exactly who should have unrestricted access to lethal weapons!

 

[bedwards]

Thanks, that's exactly why you and people like you shouldn't be making any of the laws or rules. I've owned guns and hunted since I was nine. I have CC with a permit since the early 80s and have never drawn a weapon in anger. I merely expressed my opinion and now you think I shouldn't have access to lethal weapons. That's a pretty low bar. I guess everyone who doesn't agree should be barred from access?
Your a trip. I don't think you're who and what you say you are and are just a plant on this forum.

 

[Deke Thornton]

How many of those AR-for-all marketing initiatives were actually about protecting people vs securing funding for gun companies?

As someone who's a 2A supporter but not a Gun Fundamentalist who thinks 6 year olds should carry select fire ARs to school, the amount of fearmongering that goes along with firearm sales is staggering. Some people really seem to believe that you have to be prepared to go to war with an army of "thugs" (you know what I mean) every second of every day or you'll automatically get robbed or worse. And going to any population center larger than Mayberry will immediately get you killed. Being that paranoid all the time seems like a sad way to live.

Naturally then, to the Fundamentalists (or "ammosexuals" as Bill Maher calls them) this makes me a squishy libtard who is clearly on the payroll of Nancy Pelosi. Anything short of private ownership of nuclear weapons is a communist Democrat plot. That's how it is with Fundamentalists, anyone who isn't as fully committed as they are is the enemy. I remember learning the word "fundamentalist" in 1979 when I watched the US embassy staff in Tehran being led out by terrorists on TV, it was a few years before I figured out that Americans could be fundamentalists too.

 

[biku324]

The Salafist sect of Islam is fundamentalist and has given rise to al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, IS, and a handful of other crazies (please include the Taliban, although theirs is an odd variant) - it isn't just the Shi'a of Iran with fundamentalist problems.

The thing about fundamentalism is that it is usually very easy to understand - that can be attractive to many.

 

[Denverd0n]

I used to live in North Carolina, about 8-10 miles away from an antebellum home that had been designated as a historical site. There was a cannon sitting on the front porch. There was a plaque inside that said that the owner of the home had been made a colonel in the Confederate army, because he brought 60 armed men and two cannons with him when he went to enlist.

Just sayin...