NEW SHOOTING

Greg T. said:
Let's use your train of thought for a moment. If the government were to ban ALL guns tomorrow, make them illegal, and confiscate every private firearm out there, would that stop the shootings?
Click to expand...

I think you need to point out, in reality, the government could only locate and confiscate the weapons it KNOWS about. You know, the ones registered by the law abiding citizens. Any weapon handed down (think older weapons that have been in families for generations), or any illegally obtained weapon will not be registered, so the government would have no way to identify those to confiscate them.
 
9andaWiggle said:
I think you need to point out, in reality, the government could only locate and confiscate the weapons it KNOWS about. You know, the ones registered by the law abiding citizens. Any weapon handed down (think older weapons that have been in families for generations), or any illegally obtained weapon will not be registered, so the government would have no way to identify those to confiscate them.
Click to expand...

;) Don't get ahead of me, 9~ ...
 
NO G, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. BUT, THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE THE POWER AND THE AUTHORITY TO WALK INTO ANY HOUSE THEY WANT AT ANY TIME AND TAKE ANY WEAPON THEY SEE FIT. THE POWER IS THERE FOR THEM TO DO IT RIGHT NOW.
 
He's still not getting it. When the unicorn farts and pussy-flavored rainbow land of zero guns happens in this country (it won't, but still...), people will go on killing as they have done for thousands of years. With zero guns, killing will necessarily happen from an up-close-and-personal distance.

WAMO's position is, "Well, at least they won't be able to do it from a distance."

Up close. Far away. The victim is still fucking dead.

If it's numbers of victims we're concerned about, the Bible is replete with stories in the OT of people wiping out entire cities with swords and bludgeons. The first mass murder in a school in the (now) US was the Brown School Massacre in which 9 students and their teacher were murdered with tomahawks (the hatchet, not the missile) wielded by three Delaware Indian tribesmen.

People kill people. It's an historical fact. People will continue to kill people - even in large numbers - if you take away the weapons they use to accomplish the feat.
 
BUT THOSE PEOPLE BEFORE DIDNT HAVE THE SCHOOL OF SCOLAI TO TEACH THEM TO DE-WEAPON THE ASSAILANT AS WE DO NOW. :D TOMAHAWK (NOT THE MISSLE) MEANS UP CLOSE, RIGHT? I WOULD MUCH RATHER SOMEONE APPROACH ME OR YOU WITH A KNIFE THAN A 9MM. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL BE NO GUNS. NOR DO I BELIEVE PEOPLE WILL STOP KILLING IF GUNS ARE REMOVED. JUST FEWER DEATHS.
 
WAMO said:
THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE THE POWER AND THE AUTHORITY TO WALK INTO ANY HOUSE THEY WANT AT ANY TIME AND TAKE ANY WEAPON THEY SEE FIT. THE POWER IS THERE FOR THEM TO DO IT RIGHT NOW.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that is a prime example of what the 2A is meant to help prevent.
 
WAMO said:
NO G, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. BUT, THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE THE POWER AND THE AUTHORITY TO WALK INTO ANY HOUSE THEY WANT AT ANY TIME AND TAKE ANY WEAPON THEY SEE FIT. THE POWER IS THERE FOR THEM TO DO IT RIGHT NOW.
Click to expand...

Okay, so let me get this straight. Removing all the liquor during prohibition, and making it illegal didn't work. Starting a war on drugs, making them illegal and removing as many labs as humanly possible isn't working and hasnt worked for 40+ years. You say that taking away guns and making them fully illegal won;t stop the killing. So then, why would you want to, again?

Oh, and NO, the government does not have the authority to walk into my house and take my firearms. ANYONE attempting to do so will only end up a few grams heavier than when they showed up.
 
WAMO said:
CHECK OUT THE POWER OF A GAME WARDEN. ESPECIALY IN TEXAS. THEY DONT EVEN NEED A WARRANT.
Click to expand...

I did a brief search, and game wardens have a few expandable powers that other peace officers do not have, but not many. Basically, checking equipment, licenses, and captured/killed game without probable cause to ensure compliance with game laws. Confiscation of weapons/equipment still requires some reasonable expectation that a crime has taken place.

As for property, the statute someone posted in a discussion I found with the google search, -as I read it - says they can enter your LAND or WATER for investigative purposes. Not houses - unless like other peace officers, they chased a suspect caught in the act of a crime into the building, or if they can visually witness a crime being comitted (like through an open window). To just show up at your house, come inside, and perform a search they still need a warrant.

Specifically at issue with any law enforcement agency searching a residence without a warrant is the 4th Amendment.
 
HEY 9. IN TEXAS THEY CAN ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH ONLY PROBABLE CAUSE. NO WARRANT NEEDED. THEY CAN ENTER HUNTING LODGES, VEHICLES AND ANY HOME WHERE THEY SUSPECT THERE TO BE FISH AND GAME VIOLATIONS. THEY CAN CONFISCATE ANYTHING RELATED TO THEIR SEARCH, INCLUDING GUNS.
DOES IT MAKE SINCE THAT THEY CAN HAVE THAT MUCH POWER, AND NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW AMENDMENTS AND RIGHTS AS POLICE DO, NO IT DOES NOT. SO WHAT MAKES ANYONE THINK THAT WHEN SOMEONE STARTS PUTTING 2 AND 2 TOGETHER THAT EVENTUALLY THE POLICE WONT HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITY?
 
WAMO said:
HEY 9. IN TEXAS THEY CAN ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH ONLY PROBABLE CAUSE. NO WARRANT NEEDED. THEY CAN ENTER HUNTING LODGES, VEHICLES AND ANY HOME WHERE THEY SUSPECT THERE TO BE FISH AND GAME VIOLATIONS. THEY CAN CONFISCATE ANYTHING RELATED TO THEIR SEARCH, INCLUDING GUNS.
DOES IT MAKE SINCE THAT THEY CAN HAVE THAT MUCH POWER, AND NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW AMENDMENTS AND RIGHTS AS POLICE DO, NO IT DOES NOT. SO WHAT MAKES ANYONE THINK THAT WHEN SOMEONE STARTS PUTTING 2 AND 2 TOGETHER THAT EVENTUALLY THE POLICE WONT HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITY?
Click to expand...

All the MORE reason to own a gun or 12.
 
WAMO said:
I WOULD MUCH RATHER SOMEONE APPROACH ME OR YOU WITH A KNIFE THAN A 9MM.
Click to expand...

Not me. Not in a million years. A threat with a knife is far more serious situation than a perp with a gun. I realize that doesn't compute with you, but that's immaterial to the truth of the matter.
 
Scolai said:
Not me. Not in a million years. A threat with a knife is far more serious situation than a perp with a gun. I realize that doesn't compute with you, but that's immaterial to the truth of the matter.
Click to expand...

You got that right! I'd rather face the gun.
 
REALLY!? YOU ONLY TEACH YOUR STUDENTS TO DISARM GUNMAN AND NOT KNIFEMAN? (KNIFEMAN? IS THAT REALLY A WORD?) THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE TO ME AT ALL. I WILL STILL TAKE MY CHANCES WITH SOMEONE APPROACHING ME WITH A KNIFE VERSES SOMEONE 20' AWAY POINTING A 9MM WITH A 9 ROUND CLIP AT ME, WITH BOTH HAVING THE INTENT TO KILL ME.
 
WAMO said:
REALLY!? YOU ONLY TEACH YOUR STUDENTS TO DISARM GUNMAN AND NOT KNIFEMAN? (KNIFEMAN? IS THAT REALLY A WORD?) THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE TO ME AT ALL. I WILL STILL TAKE MY CHANCES WITH SOMEONE APPROACHING ME WITH A KNIFE VERSES SOMEONE 20' AWAY POINTING A 9MM WITH A 9 ROUND CLIP AT ME, WITH BOTH HAVING THE INTENT TO KILL ME.
Click to expand...

You really should take some self defense classes. I'm not saying that to be sarcastic. You could learn a lot about would-be attackers and the potential outcome of making the wrong move.
 
I HAVE ACTULLY BEEN IN BOTH SITUATIONS, NOT NECESSARILY THAT THEY INTENDED TO KILL ME, BUT MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS TO GET AWAY, NOT BE CONFRONTATIONAL. I HAVE NEVER BEEN SHOT, BUT HAVE BEEN STABBED AND CUT SEVERALTIMES. SOMETIMES THAT NOT BEING CONFRONTATIONAL DOESNT WORK, LOL. MOST ALL THE TIME SOMEONE WITH A KNIFE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO USE IT AND ONLY SCREWS UP. BUT YOU DONT HAVE TO NOW ALOT TO PULL A TRIGGER. AND TRAING IN A CLASSROOM IS FAR DIFFERENT THAN AN ACTUAL FACE TO FACE CONFRONTATION. ALL OF US WOULD LIKE TO THINK WE WOULD DO THE RIGHT THING WHEN WE ARE IN A BAD SITUATION. ITS NOT THAT EASY TO TAKE A LIFE. AND AFTER YOU HAVE, YOU WILL NEVER BE THE SAME PERSON.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top