nah, no way. the guy is a big time republican. he would not pull an end around like a libtard, especially with his high favorable gun rating to this point in his career.

besides, he'd forfeit his Party dues when kicked out. I assure you, he is not, repeat NOT, part of the conspiracy we fear. He's just trying to find a way to keep completely insane people, like people who hear voices telling them to kill other people, from getting guns...cuz nothing has worked so far.

Them voices can be pretty convincing, I don't mind telling you.

frankj1 wrote:

When you get right down to it, this is much adieu about nothing. I seriously doubt it will save lives.

There are upwards of 270 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. Preventing someone from buying a firearm does not prevent them from obtaining one. If one wants something they will find a way to process it. Short of total confiscation, anyone has the ability to acquire a gun.

So-called "responsible" gun laws accomplish little more than to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into felons who find their ability to earn wages is sharply reduced because many employers will not hire them. People who once held jobs which enabled them to provide for their family find themselves with many less options. Many of them turn to criminal behavior so they can continue to provide for their families.

What is so bad about being in a firearm-free zone with a firearm? If no one is shot, what *real crime* has been committed? How about we severely punish those who harm or take from others? Doing so will clear the courts of the truly bullchit cases and free up time so the *real criminals* can have the full attention of the court instead of pleading those cases to maintain an acceptable work load.

Abrignac wrote:

When you get right down to it, this is much adieu about nothing. I seriously doubt it will save lives.

There are upwards of 270 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. Preventing someone from buying a firearm does not prevent them from obtaining one. If one wants something they will find a way to process it. Short of total confiscation, anyone has the ability to acquire a gun.

So-called "responsible" gun laws accomplish little more than to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into felons who find their ability to earn wages is sharply reduced because many employers will not hire them. People who once held jobs which enabled them to provide for their family find themselves with many less options. Many of them turn to criminal behavior so they can continue to provide for their families.

What is so bad about being in a firearm-free zone with a firearm? If no one is shot, what *real crime* has been committed? How about we severely punish those who harm or take from others? Doing so will clear the courts of the truly bullchit cases and free up time so the *real criminals* can have the full attention of the court instead of pleading those cases to maintain an acceptable work load.

Abrignac wrote:

How do you eat an elephant?

It's an issue like abortion, but the roles are exchanged, mention of distant thought about limiting any aspect of abortion and suddenly you hate women and you're a terrible person.

FWIW, a woman friend, who is a devout liberal, thinks anything about gun control is total BS since there are millions and millions of them already in circulation.

Gene363 wrote:

So she feels that it should be legal for a 10 year old to open carry? I mean they would look cute with a little six shooter on their hip, just for snakes and such, when they go to the mall.....

Brewha wrote:

Right. It's like having crack. It should not be a crime to have it, only to smoke it [gonzo]


Do you feel that the laws the make it illegal for a felon to own a gun are useless or as you seem to paint it, detrimental?

It think it is obvious that there are times when position of a weapon should be criminal because of the risk it poses. In a bar, on an airplane, in a court room.

Brewha wrote:

Thank you for making my point for me. Crack is outlawed, but it's easily available.

Scott, you and I will probably never agree on this, and that's fine. I don't profess to know everything about law enforcement, I'm rather new to it with only 11 years experience. But, what I do know is if someone wants something bad enough they will find a way to possess it. I don't have to read about it and everyday, I don't have to watch it on the news, I see it everyday.

If I thought for one minute that the so-called common sense legislation would save lives I'd be the first person to support it. As one person here put it he just wants his son, a LEO, to come home at the end of his shift. I also want to come home.

At the end of the day none of those laws makes anyone safer. On my off duty days I work as a School Resource Officer. Schools are fun free zones. But, that hasn't stopped middle school kids from bringing guns to school. I remember an incident that happened about five years ago. A 7th grader was in the principle's office. A gun fell out of his pants leg. He picked it up and ran away. We combed the neighborhood around the school and eventually found him and the gun. It was a loaded 9mm. The student was locked up for a day or two. About a year ago he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life.

Abrignac wrote:

Shesh, what 10 year old doesn't?

Gene363 wrote:

Your "women friend" is 10?

Brewha wrote:

I seduced a Young Republican Congressional Paige dude in 1997.

victor809 wrote:

Anthony, I do respect your view, particularly as it is a part of your profession. Yet I am confused by it. Especially from a law officer. I would think you would want all the legal tools you could have, not less. To keep the peace, as it were.

Brewha wrote:

A law never stops a crime. It does allow us to punish it though. And it does have a level of deterrence. And for some, they never go above the posted speed limit - because it is a crime. Of cource not everyone.

Now it is a truism that a criminal will always find a way. But to me that has little bearing on what should be crime by law.

Brewha wrote:

And I think the person that allowed the child access to the gun did something criminal. Or it should be a crime. Truth is I don't even know how old one needs to be to carry. But 12 or 13 is too young.

Brewha wrote:

I think the regulation should be appropriate to the risk. Like driving a car, flying a plane, handling explosives. You can do it if you meet requirements and know what your doing - which means not everyone. Owning a fire arm is a big responsibility. And we need laws regarding who can have what.

Brewha wrote:

I don't own a gun. Not that I have not fired them. And I don't want one.
But I am glad that you as a pro have one.
It's the other clowns that worry me...

Brewha wrote:

At face value it's easy to make that assumption. Years ago, I would have agreed with you. But, think of it like this, certian people are going to have guns regardless. But, if simply possessing one wasn't illegal under certian circumstances there would be many less foot pursuits through dark abandoned buildings. Also, I would venture to say a number of officers might still be with us because some felons may not have been worried about going back to jail for an extended length of time because they had guns.

Abrignac wrote:

Here is the truism in that. If you look at all firearm related homocides, I would say at least 90% of them are not crimes of opportunity. By and large firearm related homocides are committed by career criminals, true predators. They can and will acquire a firearm by any means. To keep guns out of their hands which would prevent the overwhelming vast majority of firearm homocides there would have to be absolutely no way for them to acquire a firearm.

Abrignac wrote:

No disrespect, but those words are very naive. You're an engineer. I would assume you live a comfortable life in a neighborhood where it's safe to leave your doors unlocked. The world that child came from is one where it is common to see people shot and killed in the street in front of their house in broad daylight. A world where his role models hand him a gun and tell him to go get the money from the ice cream truck when it turns onto his block.

In his world a loaded gun is as common to him as a gameboy would be to your children. In essence, what we find appalling it exactly what he was exposed to since the day he came into this world.

Abrignac wrote:

Therein lies the fallacy, you're attempting to regulate people who will for the most part self regulate.

Abrignac wrote:

In the case of Adam Lanza, who was crazier....him or his mother for teaching him how to use guns and not properly storing them? And in virtually every one of these cases there WERE red flags or known mental issues that " should have " prevented these individuals from possessing a firearm.

TMCTLT wrote:

I could sure use and ice cream sammich about now... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

I could sure use and ice cream sammich about now... 😟

DrafterX wrote: