Obama’s Pick for ATF Chief Is ‘Anti-Gun,’ Say Pro-Second Amendment Groups

[TurtleDude]

Cops Versus Gun Control Main

So Why Do so many Americans
Believe Cops Want More Gun Control
In part because that is what gun control advocates want you to believe. In their campaign to pass legislation the Brady Bill and the 1994 gun ban, for example, pro-gun control forces routinely called on cops to help make their case. Mostly big city chiefs and political appointees, (what we at LEAA like to call “photo op cops”) these few police bureaucrats have helped create a public impression that America’s cops favor gun control. (In some outrageous cases, police officers who actually opposed the legislation were forced by their superiors to appear in staged photographs as if they were solidly behind gun control!)

Next time you see cops willingly participate in pro-gun control debate, notice how few of them are front-line street level officers.

http://www.guncite.com/aswpolice.html

Every spring the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP) conducts a nationwide survey of command-rank police officers (not just top management or chiefs). The survey includes all command-rank officers, including those who do not belong to NACOP. Ninety-five percent said that they believed a citizen should have the right to purchase any type of firearm for sport or self-defense.

 

[Hoplite]

Is there a reason for your silly comment about my post?

Because I'm genuinely confused. You seem to think I'm anti-gun when really I'm not.

Why do socialists generally oppose people being armed?

I personally dont and actually most other Socialists I've ever interacted with dont either. Many Socialists advocate for gun CONTROL, that isnt the same thing as disarming.

You're going to have to, then, point out where anyone said that. Instead of, you know, engaging in pointless and intellectually devoid hyperbole and propaganda.

This is what I've been told time and time again who are anti-gun control, both implicitly and explicitly. Guns = Freedom.

It's not going to be fine. Nothing is fine on its own. It always takes work. Perhaps that should be repeated. It always takes work. Guns are not magical, guns will not guarantee success or ability. However, they remain valid tools of the People to defend life, liberty, and property. The largest threat against which is the government itself.

Oooooh I was with you until that. "Government" is made up of people, it is not a breathing entity on it's own.

 

[Ikari]

This is what I've been told time and time again who are anti-gun control, both implicitly and explicitly. Guns = Freedom.

Guns are a necessary part of it. You won't be able to fight for your freedom without them. However, it is not a guarantee; it's an opportunity. You succeed or you fail. Guns are proper tool of the People to defend life, liberty, and property. And you'd find that without them you'd find yourself quickly in police state. That doesn't mean that just by the mere act of having a gun you will prevent police state. You still have to fight, you still have to do work to accomplish anything. But the gun will be necessary in said fight. Guns do not equal freedom, but they certainly allow one the chance to get it.

Oooooh I was with you until that. "Government" is made up of people, it is not a breathing entity on it's own.

"Just doing their job" eh? That's not valid excuse. They know what they are doing. They choose for themselves to wield our power and sovereignty. They choose to take the job. And the only reason which would validate force against the government would be improper actions and abuse of power. And in such case, they choose those actions and those abuses. They make the decision to take that sovereignty and power we vested in them and to abuse it for their own gains. Government is made up of "people", but they are people who cannot be trusted due to the vast amount of power they hold. And it is they who decide to abuse said power, not me. They'll just feel the natural consequences of their actions should they choose to act improperly for too long.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Who gets to decide what is "undesirable"

Nervous? :gunsmilie:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

All this talk about rights, liberties, and the power of the people... it brings a tear to my eye.

But until people are actually willing to step up and exercise some control over their government, it's all just a platitude.

In America we call that the Tea Party.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Most intelligent federal officers and local police officers are anti-gun.

This is a NON-Story!

Any evidence to back up this asinine statement of yours? Didn't think so. impdaddy:

 

[American]

Most intelligent federal officers and local police officers are anti-gun.

This is a NON-Story!

The is completely unprovable, like most everything else you say.

 

[TurtleDude]

The is completely unprovable, like most everything else you say.

You are being much too kind. based on the available evidence, his claims are bald-faced lies. THough I am sure he will try to defend such prevarication by claiming that you cannot be intelligent and pro gun.

That he has run away from this thread speaks tomes.

 

[theangryamerican]

However, since this is a gun thread, my position on guns is that they serve no useful purpose in modern society. Nobody is going to have a revolution with their pea-shooters.

Spoken like someone who hasn't the slightest clue about gun safety and crime prevention.

 

[theangryamerican]

I would agree with that, except for the stupendous levels of gun violence that exist in this country because of the insane idea that the average citizen ought to be armed.

We need improved police forces and policies that target root causes of crime as much as possible, because this game in particular is not worth its candle.

...again, you're terribly misinformed. Please do your research before screeching your hysterics.

 

[theangryamerican]

Most intelligent federal officers and local police officers are anti-gun.

This is a NON-Story!

Any statistics to back up your blatant misinformation?

*edit* Sorry, I posted before I saw that multiple other people had already called you out on this. Carry on.

 

[God]

Only a fool talks about which he knows nothing about. Whether guns should be abolished or not aside, people who dislike guns typically know nothing about them. It is very counter-productive to write legislation or have an opinion on something that which you know nothing about. Also, legitimate gun owners who follow the law should not be demonized, rather the criminals who abuse them should. However, we have seen a trend of those on the Left to give leniency towards criminals, especially those that come from low economic backgrounds. On the other hand, states that allow anyone to get a gun without much regulation see a much higher rate of deaths per firearm.

Although it would aggravate many conservatives, the murder rate would be greatly reduced if all handguns had to be registered.

 

[TurtleDude]

Only a fool talks about which he knows nothing about. Whether guns should be abolished or not aside, people who dislike guns typically know nothing about them. It is very counter-productive to write legislation or have an opinion on something that which you know nothing about. Also, legitimate gun owners who follow the law should not be demonized, rather the criminals who abuse them should. However, we have seen a trend of those on the Left to give leniency towards criminals, especially those that come from low economic backgrounds. On the other hand, states that allow anyone to get a gun without much regulation see a much higher rate of deaths per firearm.

Although it would aggravate many conservatives, the murder rate would be greatly reduced if all handguns had to be registered.

YOu were doing fine until that last sentence

You cannot register all guns and it would do nothing to stop crime. Very few murders are committed by people who could-at the time of the crime-could legally own a gun in the first place. SO how are you going to get them to register guns when theyd didn't obtain them legally in the first place?

 

[God]

You have to understand that criminals get guns the same way law abiding citizens do. When all you need to get a handgun is a gun dealer making a call, it is going to lead to abuse. Even among friends, guns exchange hands and are sold. If every handgun could be traced back to it's owner, criminals would have a much harder time procuring them, as people would be less willing to sell them. Proof of this is that New Jersey, having the most draconian gun laws, makes it so that firearms have to be trafficked in from red states where there is no big brother watching over them.

I am not saying that registration of all handguns is ideal by any means, but if it is between that and banning 9mm's which one would you prefer?

 

[TurtleDude]

You have to understand that criminals get guns the same way law abiding citizens do. When all you need to get a handgun is a gun dealer making a call, it is going to lead to abuse. Even among friends, guns exchange hands and are sold. If every handgun could be traced back to it's owner, criminals would have a much harder time procuring them, as people would be less willing to sell them. Proof of this is that New Jersey, having the most draconian gun laws, makes it so that firearms have to be trafficked in from red states where there is no big brother watching over them.

I am not saying that registration of all handguns is ideal by any means, but if it is between that and banning 9mm's which one would you prefer?

I have been involved in this issue for almost 35 years. The only purpose registration serves is to facilitate confiscation. With 300 million or so guns already in circulation and a porous border, registration has no hope of success and will only hassle honest people. Maybe if those places like NJ got rid of their idiotic laws there would be less problems

they cannot ban 9mm's we won the court battle and a ban would not only be unconstitutional, it would be moral grounds to waste the banners

 

[God]

I have been involved in this issue for almost 35 years. The only purpose registration serves is to facilitate confiscation. With 300 million or so guns already in circulation and a porous border, registration has no hope of success and will only hassle honest people. Maybe if those places like NJ got rid of their idiotic laws there would be less problems

they cannot ban 9mm's we won the court battle and a ban would not only be unconstitutional, it would be moral grounds to waste the banners

If we are operating with facts, then if NJ got rid of their gun laws, their would be many more instances of deaths by firearms, like their is in Ohio, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Alaska, etc. You can't cling to your idealogical beliefs to the point in which you are blinded to the truth. A some point you have to look at what is in front of you.

The recent Supreme Court decsions regarding handguns are well and good but as you know Liberals do not show much regard for the Constitution and tend to trampel on it. If you are not willing to make it much more difficult for criminals to get handguns (the same way the legitimate owners do) then please do not be surprised when Liberals finally manage to undo the 2nd Amendment, seeing as how Liberals have a very good track record of passing their agendas over time.

Also, if Glock 19's existed back in the day, the founding fathers would not have been so eager to allow everyone to own them.





EDIT: Also, the AK47 Rifle is not obsolete. In many ways it is more versatile then the M4. Accuracy of a firearm means very little if it is not versatile. The FN Scar is a new favorite and it is chambered in 7.62.

 

[TurtleDude]

If we are operating with facts, then if NJ got rid of their gun laws, their would be many more instances of deaths by firearms, like their is in Ohio, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Alaska, etc. You can't cling to your idealogical beliefs to the point in which you are blinded to the truth. A some point you have to look at what is in front of you.

The recent Supreme Court decsions regarding handguns are well and good but as you know Liberals do not show much regard for the Constitution and tend to trampel on it. If you are not willing to make it much more difficult for criminals to get handguns (the same way the legitimate owners do) then please do not be surprised when Liberals finally manage to undo the 2nd Amendment, seeing as how Liberals have a very good track record of passing their agendas over time.

Also, if Glock 19's existed back in the day, the founding fathers would not have been so eager to allow everyone to own them.

I think you are clueless on some issues and informed on others. DC had complete gun bans and their crime rate was far higher than nearby Va with far easier access to guns. Same with downstate Illinois or Indiana compared to Obamaland where handguns also were banned. and if the British soldiers had glocks the founders surely would want their followers to be as well armed.

YOu are never going to win a gun issue argument with me. I have represented everything from law enforcement agencies to NRA affiliated gun clubs, to major gun dealers to a Title II manufacturer. I served as a lobbyist for a huge NRA gun club and its political wing. Registration is nothing more than a tool for confiscation. and criminals, due to the constitutional prohibitions against self-incrimination-are exempt from its provisions.

 

[God]

It is not so much that I can't win a "gun argument" with you as it is my words simply can not reach you. As you stated, you were a lobbyist for the NRA. I am also fairly certain that I could not win an argument with an Islamic Extremist who has his finger on the detonator of a bomb. I am fairly certain he would "win" the debate no matter what I said.

You have to remove your visors for just one minute. I never said that disarming citizens will lead to criminals being defeated. The reason why states that have a ban on firearms also see a high rate of crime is because only law abiding citizens follow gun laws so in those cases the only people who have guns are criminals.

I never said banning guns was a good idea.

We can not have an honest debate about anything in this Country if both sides only see the arguments they want to see.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is not so much that I can't win a "gun argument" with you as it is my words simply can not reach you. As you stated, you were a lobbyist for the NRA. I am also fairly certain that I could not win an argument with an Islamic Extremist who has his finger on the detonator of a bomb. I am fairly certain he would "win" the debate no matter what I said.

You have to remove your visors for just one minute. I never said that disarming citizens will lead to criminals being defeated. The reason why states that have a ban on firearms also see a high rate of crime is because only law abiding citizens follow gun laws so in those cases the only people who have guns are criminals.

I never said banning guns was a good idea.

We can not have an honest debate about anything in this Country if both sides only see the arguments they want to see.

actually the reason why I was so good at what I did was that I fully understand the arguments of the other side as well as those who think they are pro gun but advocate stuff that the gun banners want. Like useful fools who think that if they agree to registration or bans on scary looking guns, that will appease the scum like Sarah brady or Josh Sugarmann or Chuckie Schumer

 

[God]

actually the reason why I was so good at what I did was that I fully understand the arguments of the other side as well as those who think they are pro gun but advocate stuff that the gun banners want. Like useful fools who think that if they agree to registration or bans on scary looking guns, that will appease the scum like Sarah brady or Josh Sugarmann or Chuckie Schumer

Just like the Brady Camp has their talking points, you also have your own. You are just one extreme on the opposite end of the spectrum. I am not for banning .50 cals and other hardware that may be deemed as "scary"

I also understand why you have the views that you do. Liberals want to take away your rights and will hack away at it slowly, so naturally, anything that might be deemed anti-gun will make you suspicious. But the fact remains, in Liberal states, while gun ownership is severely limited, law abiding citizens can own guns, however criminals have to get their guns from conservative states.

This is a simple concept and it has nothing to do with bans.

"I fully understand the arguments of the other side " - No, you don't. The other side is motivated by fear and irrationality, unless you are a liberal, you will never truly understand what motivates their haterd of firearm ownership, just like they will never understand your advocacy of gun ownership. Proof of this fact is your inability to accept the fact that registration is not a step torwards banning.

"as well as those who think they are pro gun but advocate stuff that the gun banners want." - How presumptious of you to think that someone elses opinion is not correct because it does not match your own.

Ask yourself this. If Liberals did not exist, and their was zero chance of gun ownership ever being thratened, then would you be for registration?

 

[TurtleDude]

Just like the Brady Camp has their talking points, you also have your own. You are just one extreme on the opposite end of the spectrum. I am not for banning .50 cals and other hardware that may be deemed as "scary"

I also understand why you have the views that you do. Liberals want to take away your rights and will hack away at it slowly, so naturally, anything that might be deemed anti-gun will make you suspicious. But the fact remains, in Liberal states, while gun ownership is severely limited, law abiding citizens can own guns, however criminals have to get their guns from conservative states.

This is a simple concept and it has nothing to do with bans.

"I fully understand the arguments of the other side " - No, you don't. The other side is motivated by fear and irrationality, unless you are a liberal, you will never truly understand what motivates their haterd of firearm ownership, just like they will never understand your advocacy of gun ownership. Proof of this fact is your inability to accept the fact that registration is not a step torwards banning.

"as well as those who think they are pro gun but advocate stuff that the gun banners want." - How presumptious of you to think that someone elses opinion is not correct because it does not match your own.

Ask yourself this. If Liberals did not exist, and their was zero chance of gun ownership ever being thratened, then would you be for registration?

you are making me laugh and no I would never be for registration. I don't know who you are-your positions-you just showed up. But I have seen arguments for registration for years and none of them have any validity. The federal government does not have the proper power to demand people register their guns. Criminals don't have to and won't. So why should I do something that can lead to confiscation (see England) or taxation? What will registration accomplished? How many criminal cases have you attended involving illegal gun ownership? Me-at least a hundred and in not one case did the criminal buy the gun legally and in not one case, finding out who bought the gun legally did that knowledge have any relevance to the prosecution of the case.

and you are a moron if you think that the gun banners don't want registration

and sorry-if you support something all the gun banners want-I don't care what your motivation is-I will oppose it

now post something that suggests to me you have some expertise on this subject.

 

[God]

"now post something that suggests to me you have some expertise on this subject. "

It is really easy to spot someone who knows very little on a topic, they will usually speak of "expertise" Liberals do it a lot and it's called elitism but I guess you are not above it. If by "expertise" you mean Libertarian Conservative talking points then I can copy paste everything that Glen Beck has to say. Something to the effect of that if the Government knows who has the guns it will allow them to disarm citizens if they every try to stand up against a government that has become abusive to it's people. If you actually read everything I say, then maybe it will satisfy you but forgive me if the extent of my discourse is not limited to conservative talking points. If you can only think in those terms, then you are severely limited, and it is going to be all the more easy for liberals to eventually disarm you.

Also, almost every single school shooting was done with a legally owned firearm. In conservative states, the majority of men killing spouses and going postal - Very few had committed the said crimes with registered firearms. Do you know why? Because those states do not mandate registration for firearms. Either way, they were obtained legally. Criminals who buy guns off the street are not the only ones who use guns for evil.

I have already answered your questions and if you can not see it then I will leave it at that, as their is no use beating a dead horse, and I don't like aggravating gun owners.

Thread Locked.

 

[TurtleDude]

"now post something that suggests to me you have some expertise on this subject. "

It is really easy to spot someone who knows very little on a topic, they will usually speak of "expertise" Liberals do it a lot and it's called elitism but I guess you are not above it. If by "expertise" you mean Libertarian Conservative talking points then I can copy paste everything that Glen Beck has to say. Something to the effect of that if the Government knows who has the guns it will allow them to disarm citizens if they every try to stand up against a government that has become abusive to it's people. If you actually read everything I say, then maybe it will satisfy you but forgive me if the extent of my discourse is not limited to conservative talking points. If you can only think in those terms, then you are severely limited, and it is going to be all the more easy for liberals to eventually disarm you.

I have already answered your questions and if you can not see it then I will leave it at that, as their is no use beating a dead horse, and I don't like aggravating gun owners.

Thread Locked.

what are you bloviating about? I asked you why registration has any value and you cannot answer that.

 

[God]

Like I already said, read what I wrote. But then again, there are no pictures so I guess it is too difficult for you. Here, allow me to assist you. If you need me to draw up a graph just PM me.

Where do criminals get guns?

The same place law abiding citizens do.

Law abiding citizens are indistinguishable from people buying guns for the purposes of selling to criminals.

If registration existed, the "gun traffickers" would not be able to peddle guns to criminals.


It's that simple.

 

[TurtleDude]

Like I already said, read what I wrote. But then again, there are no pictures so I guess it is too difficult for you. Here, allow me to assist you. If you need me to draw up a graph just PM me.

Where do criminals get guns?

The same place law abiding citizens do.

Law abiding citizens are indistinguishable from people buying guns for the purposes of selling to criminals.

If registration existed, the "gun traffickers" would not be able to peddle guns to criminals.


It's that simple.

where do criminals get guns

1) straw purchases-registration doesn't stop that-prosecution of the straw purchaser does

2) the US Government loses 15,000 M16 rifles a year state police agencies almost as many weapons

3) our borders are porous-we cannot keep illegals and drugs out. the eastern bloc has dumped millions of "obsolete" AK 47 type weapons on the world market--second generation submachine guns like the Swedish K and UZI are all over the place as well

so you are full of it when you say criminals get their guns from the same places we do.

your idiocy about registration is just that

legal machine guns are almost never used in crimes/. almost every machine gun illegally owned or used was not purchased in the USA from legal sources but stolen from the government or smuggled in