• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Question.

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I posted a similar question in another thread but here goes for a wider set of views...

All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.

So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.

So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?

For the record I am OK with the system in place Federally. Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."
 
Well, if my experience is any guide, the psychological testing of LEOs must leave a lot to be desired, since about 20% are assholes or half-crazy. :mrgreen:

My main concerns about psych testing for 2A stuff is who gets to define where the bar is, what is normal, and the potential for abuse... if those issues could be adequately addressed I might change my mind.
 
the psychological testing of LEOs must leave a lot to be desired, since about 20% are assholes or half-crazy. :mrgreen:

.

If you think that's a high number, you should check out the statistics for us Scorpios.
 
If you think that's a high number, you should check out the statistics for us Scorpios.

Damn skippy! Scorpio here as well.
 
California has gone over that line and created a system that is different for police than for citizens. For a hand gun to be available to citizens it must be "approved" by the state and fit into a mold that excludes hi cap magazines, threaded barrels for silencers or extension of any kind, a few other lame nuances. The cost of testing for a gun company is also $5k to $10k depending on the value of the guns they have to submit too - but worse - any new gun for this list must include "micro stamping" which is so stupid and lame, but is also means no new guns will make this list for CA. Police officers are exempt from this list, and to get police unions on board with anti gun measures like AB374 which would ban any rifle that holds more than 10 rounds - but again not for police officers. I think its lame and they run a sincere risk in society of creating an elite (have's) and have nots with the elitist being the police / government.


I posted a similar question in another thread but here goes for a wider set of views...

All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.

So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.

So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?

For the record I am OK with the system in place Federally. Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."
 
No, THIS is Scorpio:



210px-Hank_Scorpio.png
 
I posted a similar question in another thread but here goes for a wider set of views...

All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.

So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.

So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?

For the record I am OK with the system in place Federally. Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."

I feel it is the responsibility of the people who employ those officers to allow or disallow their inventory. If the people feel they need a police force with grenades and tear gas, then they should allow it. If they feel their local police force should only carry billy clubs, then that is up to the local area.

I would feel fine if my local police had 9mm, shotgun and riot gear. Pepper spray and taser would be fine as well. After that, I don't really see the need.
 
I feel it is the responsibility of the people who employ those officers to allow or disallow their inventory. If the people feel they need a police force with grenades and tear gas, then they should allow it. If they feel their local police force should only carry billy clubs, then that is up to the local area.

I would feel fine if my local police had 9mm, shotgun and riot gear. Pepper spray and taser would be fine as well. After that, I don't really see the need.

Not really my point, but an excellent point and addition to the topic...

I would have no problem with this. The people should decide. Instead it is left up to one or two administrators all the while the peoples right is imposed on in the name of "reducing gun crime" when we know this does not work as you are only addressing a tool used in crime, rather than the actual cause of the crime.
 
Not really my point, but an excellent point and addition to the topic...

I would have no problem with this. The people should decide. Instead it is left up to one or two administrators all the while the peoples right is imposed on in the name of "reducing gun crime" when we know this does not work as you are only addressing a tool used in crime, rather than the actual cause of the crime.

can anyone fashion a rational argument that weapons that government bureaucrats find MOST suitable for civilian police employees to deploy against criminals in a municipal environment, should also be found to be so dangerous that no other honest civilian should even be allowed to merely possess such firearms?

I sure cannot
 
can anyone fashion a rational argument that weapons that government bureaucrats find MOST suitable for civilian police employees to deploy against criminals in a municipal environment, should also be found to be so dangerous that no other honest civilian should even be allowed to merely possess such firearms?

I sure cannot

Well just look at the amount of replies from the anti gunners... None so far. It is early though. I am hoping by this evening some will chime in with an opinion on it.
 
Not really my point, but an excellent point and addition to the topic...

I would have no problem with this. The people should decide. Instead it is left up to one or two administrators all the while the peoples right is imposed on in the name of "reducing gun crime" when we know this does not work as you are only addressing a tool used in crime, rather than the actual cause of the crime.

Ah, sorry I missed it.
 
I posted a similar question in another thread but here goes for a wider set of views...

All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.

So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.

So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?

For the record I am OK with the system in place Federally. Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."

So here it is 7:30p Eastern time and not one anti-gun person will give an opinion? No trick question, no attacks. Just answer as it is pretty simple. Either the police and military are above the law or they are not. In the end they should not be as we the people have a Constitutional right that people who follow the UCMJ give up. And police are just civilian law enforcement. They often don't have as much training as a regular run of the mill citizen.

So I really want to know.
 
The silence says it all.
 
For the record I am OK with the system in place Federally. Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."

Which part of your arm are you willing to give up?

Why do you think rights are sub-divisible? Who conned you?

And

Once you accept gun control all you can do is argue over how much to accept, exactly as you are now doing.
 
I posted a similar question in another thread but here goes for a wider set of views...

All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.

So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.

So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?

For the record I am OK with the system in place Federally. Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."

Can you show that training makes any difference at all and serves some useful purpose to society. I shall not argue that personal safety and defence ability is improved by personal stuff has nothing to do with society. What does this training, money and impediments for CITIZENS do for society?
 
Can you show that training makes any difference at all and serves some useful purpose to society. I shall not argue that personal safety and defence ability is improved by personal stuff has nothing to do with society. What does this training, money and impediments for CITIZENS do for society?

As a gun owner, I believe it is your responsibility to seek training. However, it should not be federally mandated. State rights dictate they have the ability to add that feature to their laws. I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing.
 
Which part of your arm are you willing to give up?

Why do you think rights are sub-divisible? Who conned you?

The same person that did your lobotomy?

And

Once you accept gun control all you can do is argue over how much to accept, exactly as you are now doing.

The Federal gun laws we have now again are fine. As I pointed out "Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."

Reading is fundamental.
 
Can you show that training makes any difference at all and serves some useful purpose to society. I shall not argue that personal safety and defence ability is improved by personal stuff has nothing to do with society. What does this training, money and impediments for CITIZENS do for society?

Reading is fundamental.
 
Well, if my experience is any guide, the psychological testing of LEOs must leave a lot to be desired, since about 20% are assholes or half-crazy. :mrgreen:

My main concerns about psych testing for 2A stuff is who gets to define where the bar is, what is normal, and the potential for abuse... if those issues could be adequately addressed I might change my mind.

This is one of the questions that comes up for me when it comes to psychiatric background checks. Where is the line drawn when it comes to denying a person with psychological/emotional issues their rights?
 
As a gun owner, I believe it is your responsibility to seek training. However, it should not be federally mandated. State rights dictate they have the ability to add that feature to their laws. I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing.

Can you show with any degree of validity that what you believe and support will make the slightest difference to crime rates or accidental shootings? How many accidental shootings are we going to prevent by inconveniencing everyone with cost, read tape, arbitrary decisions, tests, registration and control? Is registration and control not unconstitutional and against our rights. WTF does "shall not be infringed" mean to you and why is it there if you could not care to understand it?

No you would not think it a bad thing. In 1903 in England parliament introduced a law that required a permit for the carrying of handguns in towns. It was freely available to everyone as were guns. Low cost and available at any post office. It was the beginning of the end becasue idiots could not be bothered and it might be a good thing. From a right to own any firearm where will that one stupid mistake end?

BTW prior to 1920 anyone in England could own any firearm be they child, lunatic or criminal. The crime rate has never again been that low. Do the idiots count the lives they have cost by sitting on their bum when they should have been objecting?

And 1920 changed becasue of parliaments fear of Bolshevik uprising. The reasons for gun control have not changed.

Who's fault was this, parliament or the idiots who accepted it including gun owners who simply cannot think or care.

There are plenty of laws that cover the irresponsible use of firearms and other stuff. Do we go for petrol training? Is it mandated? Matches? Power tools? .....

When you accept gun control all you can now do is argue over how much to accept.
 
I posted a similar question in another thread but here goes for a wider set of views...

All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.

So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.

So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?

For the record I am OK with the system in place Federally. Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."
Foster patents go through more extensive 'testing' than LEOs and military.
 
As a gun owner, I believe it is your responsibility to seek training. However, it should not be federally mandated. State rights dictate they have the ability to add that feature to their laws. I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing.

That's not what he asked.
 
Foster patents go through more extensive 'testing' than LEOs and military.

Yep they do.

Notice not one anti gun person will touch the question. It's because they know the answer, and it blows everything about their logic for gun control out the window.
 
Yep they do.

Notice not one anti gun person will touch the question. It's because they know the answer, and it blows everything about their logic for gun control out the window.
You can't keep screwing the economy or suspend the people in fear while the population is armed.

That is what gun control and ACA are about.
 
Back
Top Bottom