Question for LEO's/Military/ETC

[Marksman]

No single person is powerful enough. It needs to be put to a vote. I say the left should try to amend the Constitution. Put everything on the table. Background checks, NFA items, waiting periods, carry permits, scary features, round limits, EVERYTHING. Go big or go home.

Stop teasing me with this incremental tyranny.

Sorry, and sad, to say that if it were put to vote, the Infringers in PG, Montgomery, and Baltimore would run the gamut and overrule the rest of the entire state.

 

[bigplayer2382]

Where does it say in the Constitution (or any amendments to the Constitution) that we should have background checks? Should we also prevent blind people from owning firearms? What about people with mental issues such as depression / PTSD? How do background checks stop criminals from obtaining firearms?

Background checks are predicated on the idea that I am guilty until proven innocent - just like waiting periods.


Now, to nobody in particular:

Don't you dare think that you can compromise MY RIGHTS in order to make yourself feel better about who you THINK might be able to access guns. It's not your choice.

So then you think you should be able to walk into any shop purchase a rifle and walk out, no names, no background checks nothing? just like that one video game right? If you think thugs, gangsters, criminals, ect. will not utilize this method of obtaining weapons your fking retarded. Since when does a background check stop the blind from owning a weapon? It stops people with criminal records you fking moron, not the disabled.

You have single handedly pissed me off. Right wing extremists like you who refuse to see any sort of common sense are the ones who make the rest of us look bad. Your no better then the ignorant liberals creating the idiotic laws in effect. Background checks don't "stop" criminals from buying weapons, but they do "prevent" one method of legally purchasing firearms. The more ways you prevent them from purchasing firearms (legal or illegal), the less they will have.

"My constitution this, my constitution that" The constitution had no idea that we would have the internet and be able to perform a life history check to see if someone has committed felonies in the matter of minutes.

 

[9613]

So then you think you should be able to walk into any shop purchase a rifle and walk out, no names, no background checks nothing? just like that one video game right? If you think thugs, gangsters, criminals, ect. will not utilize this method of obtaining weapons your fking retarded. Since when does a background check stop the blind from owning a weapon? It stops people with criminal records you fking moron, not the disabled.

You have single handedly pissed me off. Right wing extremists like you who refuse to see any sort of common sense are the ones who make the rest of us look bad. Your no better then the ignorant liberals creating the idiotic laws in effect. Background checks don't "stop" criminals from buying weapons, but they do "prevent" one method of legally purchasing firearms. The more ways you prevent them from purchasing firearms (legal or illegal), the less they will have.

"My constitution this, my constitution that" The constitution had no idea that we would have the internet and be able to perform a life history check to see if someone has committed felonies in the matter of minutes.

You are a resident of a failed state and you seem to not know why. Do you use the same screen name on Democratic Underground, too?

 

[bigplayer2382]

You are a resident of a failed state and you seem to not know why. Do you use the same screen name on Democratic Underground, too?

I am in a failed state, I realize I'm in a failed state, and thats why I cant wait to move up the road to Delaware after college. If you think I'm liberal your far from correct.

To assume that I can only have the views of one political party proves your ignorance and the reason why this country is falling apart. Try thinking for yourself for once. I have some liberal views, such as abortion ect. Once again, your no better then the idiots who voted Obama into office not knowing any of his political stances.

"HE WANTS BACKGROUND CHECKS, HES A LIBZ!"

 

[9613]

I am in a failed state, I realize I'm in a failed state, and thats why I cant wait to move up the road to Delaware after college. If you think I'm liberal your far from correct.

To assume that I can only have the views of one political party proves your ignorance and the reason why this country is falling apart. Try thinking for yourself for once. I have some liberal views, such as abortion ect. Once again, your no better then the idiots who voted Obama into office not knowing any of his political stances.

"HE WANTS BACKGROUND CHECKS, HES A LIBZ!"

I never said you had only one political view. In fact, you were the one to jump in that whole 'rightwing extremist' thing. While you are entitled to your views, you lose all credibility when you start with the name calling. Let's try to have a mature conversation, please.

Let me get this thread back on topic. The question is "what are military / law enforcement personnel's views on MD gun laws." Here's my view: I swore an oath to, in part, defend America against domestic enemies. I feel that any infringement on a God-given right is an enemy. Background checks are predicated on the fact that I am a criminal because it prevents me from purchasing a firearm until it is proven that I'm not a criminal. (They don't run background checks to see if your driver's license had been revoked before you buy a car). Additionally, I feel that any law that regulates the civilian population and prevents them from owning the same arms that the US military uses is WRONG. There should be no such thing as 'for LE / military use only" in my opinion.

 

[Blackstar65]

alright, but are you saying SB281 did anything to improve the background check system/private sale background checks?

No

 

[bigplayer2382]

I never said you had only one political view. In fact, you were the one to jump in that whole 'rightwing extremist' thing. While you are entitled to your views, you lose all credibility when you start with the name calling. Let's try to have a mature conversation, please.

Let me get this thread back on topic. The question is "what are military / law enforcement personnel's views on MD gun laws." Here's my view: I swore an oath to, in part, defend America against domestic enemies. I feel that any infringement on a God-given right is an enemy. Background checks are predicated on the fact that I am a criminal because it prevents me from purchasing a firearm until it is proven that I'm not a criminal. (They don't run background checks to see if your driver's license had been revoked before you buy a car). Additionally, I feel that any law that regulates the civilian population and prevents them from owning the same arms that the US military uses is WRONG. There should be no such thing as 'for LE / military use only" in my opinion.

"god given right". I'm about tired of that statement. When did this unproven figure you call "god" tell you, or the United States Government, "you have the right to own a firearm". You can have your opinion, and I'll have mine. But this started when you took my opinion and stomped on it as if I'm the one implementing a retarded gun ban.

So answer me this. You clearly think background checks are completely wrong. So you believe ANYONE, should be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a pistol or assault rifle anywhere in Maryland and just walk out, correct? Do you believe this will have an effect on crimes?

Also, you believe that if the person has the money, they should be allowed to purchase sarin gas then too, correct? (sarin gas is extremely cheap for the record)

 

[9613]

"god given right". I'm about tired of that statement. When did this unproven figure you call "god" tell you, or the United States Government, "you have the right to own a firearm". You can have your opinion, and I'll have mine. But this started when you took my opinion and stomped on it as if I'm the one implementing a retarded gun ban.

So answer me this. You clearly think background checks are completely wrong. So you believe ANYONE, should be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a pistol or assault rifle anywhere in Maryland and just walk out, correct? Do you believe this will have an effect on crimes?

Also, you believe that if the person has the money, they should be allowed to purchase sarin gas then too, correct? (sarin gas is extremely cheap for the record)

1. I feel that the Constitution and its Amendments do not give me the right to infringe on any US citizen's right to purchase a firearm. This is an inconvenient truth for most, as it means that all men must be held accountable for their actions.

2. That's a strawman argument and you know it. However, I will say this: The right to keep and bear arms was for personal protection and also for maintenance of a free state. Items such as nuclear and chemical weapons are completely indiscriminate and have the potential to do harm decades after their use. They are also completely inappropriate as a self defense weapon and can be considered to be an infringement on the freedoms of others by their very nature.

 

[Corporal Doug]

1. I feel that the Constitution and its Amendments do not give me the right to infringe on any US citizen's right to purchase a firearm. This is an inconvenient truth for most, as it means that all men must be held accountable for their actions.

2. That's a strawman argument and you know it. However, I will say this: The right to keep and bear arms was for personal protection and also for maintenance of a free state. Items such as nuclear and chemical weapons are completely indiscriminate and have the potential to do harm decades after their use. They are also completely inappropriate as a self defense weapon and can be considered to be an infringement on the freedoms of others by their very nature.

You believe there should be no such thing as "le/mil use only", sooo let's allow people to have AT-4 rockets and M67 fragmentation grenades. Yeah, that seems legit.

 

[TACAV]

I am a cop in Maryland.

I and the overwhelming vast majority of other cops that I know whether they be local police, county deputies, or state troopers all think the new laws are a bunch of BS.

Several of my co-workers are NRA members, avid hunters, and competition shooters.

Many of us own so called "assault rifles"and I know several of us (including me) that own NFA items.

Heck even the MPCTC LE firearms instructors over in Sykesville all hate these new laws.

Load of crap these laws are. They were pretty stupid before October 1 but as a former resident of NY they were at least.... doable... I suppose.

From personal experience every "legit" criminal (by legit I mean I don't count the PA or VA visitor who forgot about non reciprocity CCW laws when crossing the boarder) who I have encountered who had a gun had some POS handgun that was barely functional or it already had an under ten round magazine to begin with. Or they had an airsoft gun or some other replica.

Never seen anyone with an AR or AK or whatever.

Criminals can't afford those types of guns anyways.

Banning standard capacity magazines or so called "assault weapons" would not have stopped ANY of the legit criminals I have dealt with who had some revolver, (often times a .22LR revolver) or a crap box Jennings JA-9.

Or even a 10 round Glock26 for those more enterprising criminals...

Just like many of you I listened to the senate hearings and wanted to rip my computer speakers out as I listened to the utter nonsense and stupidity of several of the democrat politicians who were ramrodding this through.

They proved time and again what a bunch of uneducated jack offs they are as they legislated laws on topics and subject matter they proved time and time again they had no idea what they were talking about.

With crap like this, the rain tax, subsidies for this, taxes for that, decriminalization of certain drugs etc looking back I would never have taken a job in this state had I known what a communist black hole this state has become.

 

[FrankZ]

You believe there should be no such thing as "le/mil use only", sooo let's allow people to have AT-4 rockets and M67 fragmentation grenades. Yeah, that seems legit.

I am curious.

Is there something about those two things that would somehow make me less responsible?

The argument that particular arms are too dangerous for civilian use is the type of argument that gets us onto the slope. Where is the line? Who decides something is too dangerous?

 

[5.56blaster]

Obama sucks, O Mally sucks, Maryland sucks, Dems suck, gun control sucks, and union's suck for giving money to the dems to do this! How's that for a point of view?

 

[bigplayer2382]

1. I feel that the Constitution and its Amendments do not give me the right to infringe on any US citizen's right to purchase a firearm. This is an inconvenient truth for most, as it means that all men must be held accountable for their actions.

2. That's a strawman argument and you know it. However, I will say this: The right to keep and bear arms was for personal protection and also for maintenance of a free state.

Okay so you completely avoided my question.

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT believe that ANYONE should be able to walk into a shop and purchase a pistol, rifle, "assault rifle" with cash and walk right out? No names, no checks, nothing.

I agree you should be able to bear arms for personal protection and to maintain a free state... No one is arguing that... Especially not on a shooting forum

Items such as nuclear and chemical weapons are completely indiscriminate and have the potential to do harm decades after their use. They are also completely inappropriate as a self defense weapon and can be considered to be an infringement on the freedoms of others by their very nature.

So as long as the weapon does not serve the purpose of self defense then it is okay to be considered 'military only'? That's contradicting your previous statement.

There should be no such thing as 'for LE / military use only" in my opinion.

So now lets go down the list, which should be civilian, which should be military only? Or are you going to take your previous stance of there should be no such thing as LE/mil use only:
Pistols
M4's
M249's
.50 cals
plastic explosives (would be dirt cheap in a civilian market)
AT4's
claymore's
M67's
60mm Mortars (costs only $20 ea...)
81mm Mortars (cost only $50 ea..)
120mm Mortars (costs only $100...)
Artillery in general..
Qassam Rockets (still only $800)
Larger missiles I know nothing about
Chemical weapons specifically (cheaper than qassam rockets without getting into figures..)
any CBRN

At what point do you draw the line?

Going off what you have said (and contradicted) you think some random thug who got off with murder and is pending assault with a deadly weapon charges in south Detroit should be able to walk into a shop and purchase a few 60mm mortars free and clear. Because how dare we do a background check which assumes hes criminal. And How dare the public not have the same weapons as the military.

My personal opinion: If you argue that civilians should be allowed to stockpile 60mm mortars, M67's, and claymores in detroit, nyc, san fransisco, baltimore, your a tad bit ridiculous and fail to see the big picture.

 

[Corporal Doug]

I am curious.

Is there something about those two things that would somehow make me less responsible?

The argument that particular arms are too dangerous for civilian use is the type of argument that gets us onto the slope. Where is the line? Who decides something is too dangerous?

You? Maybe not. Average joe that wants to blow shit up but has no training or knowledge as to the workings of those items, yes. Those items are extremely dangerous and should only be I'm the hands of people who are trained. Know how criminals get guns typically? Home burglaries. Now if you had a guy with a bunch of those types of explosives you are asking for trouble. Any other firearm I could care less if people had them, if someone wants a browning m2 then so be it. I know that ammo is expensive and not easy to come by linked, so I have no worries about the criminal element. I don't really think that explosive ordinance would actually be covered under the second amendment anyway......

 

[aquaman]

You believe there should be no such thing as "le/mil use only", sooo let's allow people to have AT-4 rockets and M67 fragmentation grenades. Yeah, that seems legit.

fyi people already are allowed to own those kinds of things, dd tax on each one, purchase process is just like NFA.

 

[FrankZ]

You? Maybe not. Average joe that wants to blow shit up but has no training or knowledge as to the workings of those items, yes. Those items are extremely dangerous and should only be I'm the hands of people who are trained. Know how criminals get guns typically? Home burglaries. Now if you had a guy with a bunch of those types of explosives you are asking for trouble. Any other firearm I could care less if people had them, if someone wants a browning m2 then so be it. I know that ammo is expensive and not easy to come by linked, so I have no worries about the criminal element. I don't really think that explosive ordinance would actually be covered under the second amendment anyway......

The bold is what gun grabbers say about EBRs.

Anytime you take away the dangerous bits whatever left becomes the new dangerous.

Did the framers intend citizens to be able to own cannons? Mortars? I don't know. I have always believed we need to err on the side of personal responsibility and personal rights.

 

[Corporal Doug]

The bold is what gun grabbers say about EBRs.

Anytime you take away the dangerous bits whatever left becomes the new dangerous.

Did the framers intend citizens to be able to own cannons? Mortars? I don't know. I have always believed we need to err on the side of personal responsibility and personal rights.

The problem is that very few people in our society have personal responsibility anymore. And yes I'm aware of what gun grabbers say. They aren't 100% wrong in being cautious against people who want to do bad things. However they are wrong in thinking that NO ONE should have firearms.

 

[FrankZ]

The problem is that very few people in our society have personal responsibility anymore. And yes I'm aware of what gun grabbers say. They aren't 100% wrong in being cautious against people who want to do bad things. However they are wrong in thinking that NO ONE should have firearms.

This is where we should start the fight.

 

[BMW]

Did the framers intend citizens to be able to own cannons? Mortars? I don't know. I have always believed we need to err on the side of personal responsibility and personal rights.

Yes. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended for us to be able to own state of the art military weapons just like they did.

Two Colt-Browning machine guns the “Roosevelt’s Rough Riders” took to Cuba in 1898 were purchased and donated by private citizens.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/the-rough-riders-potato-digger/

That is my opinion as an informed responsible gun owner and patriot. Being a gun owner and patriot puts me in the same category as the framers, making me imminently more qualified to interpret the Second Amendment than some politician with a firearms phobia.

Carry on.

 

[Badfish55]

I belive that there should be guidlines but to what degree i dont know. We live in modern times and you need modern solutions to solve modern problems not ideals that were set 237 years ago. I do belive the goverment is trying there just being lazy.