Sponsored

Jeep owner uses JL to assist police pursuit, draws gun and fires

shacdaddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Threads
31
Messages
397
Reaction score
402
Location
Miami, FL
Website
www.youtube.com
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLUR Sting-Gray
"Assist"

He didn't assist a thing: he made a bad situation worse and probably would've gotten shot himself.
Sponsored

 

Rahneld

Banned
Banned
Banned
First Name
Ronald
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Threads
62
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
692
Location
Boston
Vehicle(s)
JL Wrangler
So-called "red flag" laws are being written to give an illusion of "due process" b/c a mere call by a relative (depending on state and legislative proposal) is taken and discussed with a Judge before issuing the order to seize property. However, the concept of taking one's property FIRST and then giving "due process" is turning centuries of common law and rule of law on its ear going all the way back to Magna Carta in 1215 under King John of England, which was later incorporated into the US Constitution. This literally is an attempt to eviscerate the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.

Here are a few examples of "red flag-type" laws in action:

In Middlebury, Vermont, prosecutors obtained a Gun Confiscation Order against a kid -- and then, without any statutory authority, used it to strip his law-abiding uncle of his constitutional rights.

In Ferndale, Maryland, 60-year-old Gary Willis was killed by police with a Gun Confiscation Order, when he came to the door at 5:17 a.m. with a gun in his hand. It now turns out that the Gun Confiscation Order was obtained by a vengeful relative who wanted to punish Willis for his political views.

In Seattle, Washington, an early report by Fox News showed that Gun Confiscation Orders were being summarily approved in almost every case.


I'm no fan of Fox News, but claiming that 'due process' is your right to spend 10's of thousands of dollars retaining an attorney (at your own OR taxpayer expense) as well as expert and character witnesses to hopefully get a Judge to say he might have made a mistake, is VERY UNLIKELY to happen...especially if Fox is correct in its assessment.

Bills like S. 7 written by Sen. Blumenthal of CT would convene secret courts and the targeted citizen of these laws would have no idea until police kicked in his door, putting not only the citizen at great risk on nothing more than the word of one person (even the Bible requires "two witnesses")....but the lives of the officers as well and any other occupants of the dwelling in which the order is served. The bills currently don't even have a caveat that the testimony has to be given under oath in all cases.
I respect your feelings sir that red flag laws, in allowing family, not just police to have probable cause before a judge to temporarily remove firearms pushes the boundaries of gun rights. Those who bear false witness could be sanctioned if they lie, as much as it may be impossible, barring witnesses, to prove their testimony deliberate lies. So I get your point.

And I get how due process seems best available to those who can afford it, when it should be universal--much that the firearms are returned in time (I appreciate that you probably believe they shouldn't be taken at all) baring the State making a case.

Recognizing the difference, at least to my mind, I'd be curious to know what, without judging you, your feelings are on TROs (temporary restraining orders: which usually involve gun surrender) and their difference to red flag laws.

I don't know the particulars of the cases you cite but taking guns from kids strikes me as less overreach (even if you tolerate none) than from an adult. Could the Uncle have been irresponsible with restricting their access that allowed the minor to access them, that inspired this in the first place?

Mr. Willis' story is tragic. From your account an abuse of the law by a relative had him face an unfair situation, that might make similar situations more common. I do think that knowing if Police procedure was followed is relevant--you may find it moot.

And Seattle's reported approval rate, while suspect I agree, requires examination of the cases before judicial abuse can be cited--much that I respect that you believe legislative abuse in crafting these laws, if not also judicial abuse in applying them is at play.

We can't abandon law in desperate times of school shootings--in fact, as I gather you'd correctly retort, the laws only mean something when held even when times get tough. But times are tough. Arming teachers who often pursued this career, particularly at the elementary school level, to avoid such violence may not fair well with firearms in school.

I'm curious--not judging--how you might propose to better protect schools despite the respectable argument that crazy times not only don't allow us to step on amendments, but they only have real value when followed in hard times like this.

I am not against you Mr. Sean K. Rather, I just don't know what the best answers are.
 

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Threads
32
Messages
496
Reaction score
778
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
I respect your feelings sir that red flag laws, in allowing family, not just police to have probable cause before a judge to temporarily remove firearms pushes the boundaries of gun rights. Those who bear false witness could be sanctioned if they lie, as much as it may be impossible, barring witnesses, to prove their testimony deliberate lies. So I get your point.

And I get how due process seems best available to those who can afford it, when it should be universal--much that the firearms are returned in time (I appreciate that you probably believe they shouldn't be taken at all) baring the State making a case.

Recognizing the difference, at least to my mind, I'd be curious to know what, without judging you, your feelings are on TROs (temporary restraining orders: which usually involve gun surrender) and their difference to red flag laws.

I don't know the particulars of the cases you cite but taking guns from kids strikes me as less overreach (even if you tolerate none) than from an adult. Could the Uncle have been irresponsible with restricting their access that allowed the minor to access them, that inspired this in the first place?

Mr. Willis' story is tragic. From your account an abuse of the law by a relative had him face an unfair situation, that might make similar situations more common. I do think that knowing if Police procedure was followed is relevant--you may find it moot.

And Seattle's reported approval rate, while suspect I agree, requires examination of the cases before judicial abuse can be cited--much that I respect that you believe legislative abuse in crafting these laws, if not also judicial abuse in applying them is at play.

We can't abandon law in desperate times of school shootings--in fact, as I gather you'd correctly retort, the laws only mean something when held even when times get tough. But times are tough. Arming teachers who often pursued this career, particularly at the elementary school level, to avoid such violence may not fair well with firearms in school.

I'm curious--not judging--how you might propose to better protect schools despite the respectable argument that crazy times not only don't allow us to step on amendments, but they only have real value when followed in hard times like this.

I am not against you Mr. Sean K. Rather, I just don't know what the best answers are.
My objection to these laws has little to do with "gun rights"....and everything to do with private property rights and rule of law.

If we start "delaying" due process until some later date...who/what's to say that we don't just string justice out indefinitely as it suits the state? This is the proverbial slippery slope.

I don't pretend to have all the answers....but I have some ideas regarding why we've seen the increase in school shootings over the last few decades.

Many of these school shooters (the majority, in fact) were on some sort of SSRI inhibitor or had just gotten off of one/multiple. In point of fact, SSRI drugs have FDA BLACK LABEL warnings on them regarding their use in people under the age of 25 who's brains are not fully developed and the side effects include suicidal tendencies as well as violent outbursts. We are passing these drugs out to children like candy for "disorders" that are, IMO, largely caused by diet (ADHD, for example) and broken homes. Many of our children are not being nurtured, cared for and brought up to be responsible, productive adults. That's society's fault as a whole. It's easier to give the kid a pill than to actually parent.

The real question is: Why has no government entity looked more closely at this correlation between these drugs and the shooters? Correlation is not necessarily causation....but it certainly warrants a further investigation and again, IMO, the reason we aren't getting one is b/c our government doesn't work for THE PEOPLE....it is run by an oligarchy with an incestuous relationship between large, powerful corporations and our government. The fallacy of the SCOTUS ruling on "Corporate Personhood" is one such enabler of this sort of abuse of power to continue.

Now, what I've said above may sound like I'm some sort of Communist who doesn't like "corporations" and "capitalism". Nothing could be further from the truth however. The system our country has slowly morphed into is not "Capitalism" at all....It resembles nothing of a true free market. Instead, government picks winners and losers in the marketplace and those decisions are largely made by which companies can enrich our non-representing "representatives". If asked, my financial philosophy would be that of Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations in large part (though I diverge from his viewpoint on some of his more collectivist ideas)....Milton Friedman would be a better match. If one is looking for a great read, Free to Choose by Friedman is excellent.

But I've managed to go off on another tangent. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of ways to improve (not cure) the school shooting phenomenon. It won't be cured completely b/c no matter how stringent you make gun laws, no matter how we address mental health issues, if someone really wants to kill people, they'll find a way. We can talk about how Reagan (my favorite President in my lifetime; though I didn't agree with several things he did) slashed mental health funding in this country and it never recovered meaning that the penal system had to pick up the slack and those that fell through the cracks still, to this day, make up a large percentage of the homeless population. We can discuss arming teachers (only those willing to do so, IMO) or hiring armed security....as was done in Israel when the Palestinians were shooting up schools and taking hostages. We can talk about hardening our schools to make them less of a "soft" target in other ways as well. We can talk about how in the recent Florida shooting, our justice system failed us by allowing a violent young man to avoid prosecution and incarceration.....even prior to his social media posts telegraphing his violent intentions.

There are a whole host of things that can be done to improve the situation....but infringing upon the rights of innocent citizens in hopes of stopping a tiny minority is wishful thinking at best and tyrannical at worst.
 

Rahneld

Banned
Banned
Banned
First Name
Ronald
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Threads
62
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
692
Location
Boston
Vehicle(s)
JL Wrangler
My objection to these laws has little to do with "gun rights"....and everything to do with private property rights and rule of law.
Thank you for clarifying.

If we start "delaying" due process until some later date...who/what's to say that we don't just string justice out indefinitely as it suits the state? This is the proverbial slippery slope.
I respect this, as I do the fact that people have say in these limits, even if indirectly, through the election process. It's hardly perfect, but our State is composed of and run by citizens, these citizens can vote in and out candidates who share their beliefs. The system is flawed; nothing I know isn't. Getting elected takes appeal, but also money favoring the wealthy: no argument there.

I don't pretend to have all the answers....but I have some ideas regarding why we've seen the increase in school shootings over the last few decades.
I'd love to solve these problems which the red-laws you are against were inspired by.

Many of these school shooters (the majority, in fact) were on some sort of SSRI inhibitor or had just gotten off of one/multiple. In point of fact, SSRI drugs have FDA BLACK LABEL warnings on them regarding their use in people under the age of 25 who's brains are not fully developed and the side effects include suicidal tendencies as well as violent outbursts.
Let's assume I buy into the idea that fingers can fairly be pointed at the still maleable brains on SSRIs. In fairness I'm not with, but respect you here. And I would like to point out that these kids are suppose to be monitored because the drugs can give patients just enough confidence, sadly, to take their lives....but other people's? I just don't know. It doesn't mean you aren't on to something though. The warnings are for suicide, but homicide?

What alternatives methods would you suggest we take to treat these people? How's about those the medicines have helped?

We are passing these drugs out to children like candy for "disorders" that are, IMO, largely caused by diet (ADHD, for example) and broken homes.
Assume again that diet and the wide distribution of SSRIs are fair culprits. Know I respect, but don't draw similar conclusions to you sir here.

You strike me as a man who'd have less government and more freedom by your property rights arguments above--and that's absolutely your right to want that if so. Are we not reducing freedoms if we pass rules dictating what people can eat and take as medicine?

And broken homes, parents that don't well raise kids...? I agree. I admit though to having no good idea on how to incentivize greater accountability when it come to raising kids. I take no sides here, but some have suggested downturns in crime have been linked to ways to prevent and terminate pregnancy and not have those children in the first place--much as I respect those who believe all life sacred.

(This is light years away from lift kits and ESS.)

Mr. Sean please know I don't spar with you. I just want answers better then the ones I've been able to come up with.

Many of our children are not being nurtured, cared for and brought up to be responsible, productive adults. That's society's fault as a whole.
I agree sir.

It's easier to give the kid a pill than to actually parent.
In some cases I think you're right. In others I know of people I consider wonderful parents who tried everything for their kids, including medicine, and often it helped.

The real question is: Why has no government entity looked more closely at this correlation between these drugs and the shooters? Correlation is not necessarily causation....but it certainly warrants a further investigation and again, IMO, the reason we aren't getting one is b/c our government doesn't work for THE PEOPLE....it is run by an oligarchy with an incestuous relationship between large, powerful corporations and our government.
For me Mr. Sean the above is extreme, but not loony speak. Pharmaceutical firms do have strong lobbies to petition the FDA to expand a drug's indications, not reduce them. But we have seen times when blockbuster drugs have had contraindications assigned to them or pulled when unsafe, leading me to believe that our systems run better than they don't.

But do know that the place from which you voice frustration sir is appreciated and respected.

The fallacy of the SCOTUS ruling on "Corporate Personhood" is one such enabler of this sort of abuse of power to continue.
I'm guessing cases like Burwell v. Hobby where companies can have religious beliefs, in addition to it's people, if it's hard to tease out the two, have no place in the America you wish be?

(Don't know if I got that right.)

Now, what I've said above may sound like I'm some sort of Communist who doesn't like "corporations" and "capitalism".
No Mr. Sean. Not for me. You're entitled to your beliefs and I (think I) appreciate the arguments from which they come and the head of steam your beliefs assign to them. We are good sir.

Nothing could be further from the truth however. The system our country has slowly morphed into is not "Capitalism" at all....It resembles nothing of a true free market. Instead, government picks winners and losers in the marketplace and those decisions are largely made by which companies can enrich our non-representing "representatives".
I'm not sure sir if your claim is that our government isn't Capitalist or that if fails to support Capitalism or both. I suspect places where its broken make it less Capitalistic, and I known markets that are very competitive.

If asked, my financial philosophy would be that of Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations in large part (though I diverge from his viewpoint on some of his more collectivist ideas)....Milton Friedman would be a better match. If one is looking for a great read, Free to Choose by Friedman is excellent.
This Freidman reading introduced, in a different form, IMHO, many of the tradeoffs we discuss above between limiting liberties and what if any safety doing so provides us. Friedman sought free markets thinking government best sideline themselves. It's valid as long as one also realizes that when greed is allowed to thrive in absence of a level and safe playing field (legislation) things like dangerous products and anti-trust relationships, to name only two, can form.

The completely fair soccer game requires a referee, but one, to your point I think, that promotes, not detracts from the game.

But I've managed to go off on another tangent. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of ways to improve (not cure) the school shooting phenomenon. It won't be cured completely b/c no matter how stringent you make gun laws, no matter how we address mental health issues, if someone really wants to kill people, they'll find a way.
I think we agree sir that we both want to see fair ways though to reduce these numbers.

We can talk about how Reagan (my favorite President in my lifetime; though I didn't agree with several things he did) slashed mental health funding in this country and it never recovered meaning that the penal system had to pick up the slack and those that fell through the cracks still, to this day, make up a large percentage of the homeless population. We can discuss arming teachers (only those willing to do so, IMO) or hiring armed security....as was done in Israel when the Palestinians were shooting up schools and taking hostages.
Israel is a much more armed nation to begin with, good, bad or indifferent, agreed?

We can talk about hardening our schools to make them less of a "soft" target in other ways as well. We can talk about how in the recent Florida shooting, our justice system failed us by allowing a violent young man to avoid prosecution and incarceration.....even prior to his social media posts telegraphing his violent intentions.
..a justice system that with the red flag laws you dislike--and I respect why (reduction of liberties)--might have prevented his actions....

There are a whole host of things that can be done to improve the situation....but infringing upon the rights of innocent citizens in hopes of stopping a tiny minority is wishful thinking at best and tyrannical at worst.
That, I must admit, is a very fair point. We may only be able to put a dent in the problem. I hope I am wrong.
 

Sponsored

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Threads
32
Messages
496
Reaction score
778
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
I respect this, as I do the fact that people have say in these limits, even if indirectly, through the election process. It's hardly perfect, but our State is composed of and run by citizens, these citizens can vote in and out candidates who share their beliefs. The system is flawed; nothing I know isn't. Getting elected takes appeal, but also money favoring the wealthy: no argument there.
What you seem to be saying is: if you don't like a law, elect different reps that will change it back. The problem with that type of thinking is, once liberty is lost, gaining it back is usually not accomplished by voting in new representatives. Prohibition is one of the few instances were liberty was regained by legislative action and even at that, a LOT of blood was shed to get that reversal. It is far better to fight an infringement of natural rights (in this case right to property, self defense, due process, to be secure in one's home, etc) than to cede that power to government and hope they'll give it back once they've realized a mistake has been made. Government's nature is to hoard power....not give it back to the people. Again, the Frederick Douglass quote applies, "Power concedes nothing without a demand....."



Let's assume I buy into the idea that fingers can fairly be pointed at te still maleable brains on SSRIs. In fairness I'm not with, but respect you here. And I would like to point out that these kids are suppose to be monitored because the drugs can give patients just enough confidence, sadly, to take their lives....but other people's? I just don't know. It doesn't mean you aren't on to something though. The warnings are for suicide, but homicide?
I suggest you do more research on the matter. As I stated, the warning is for violent outburst and manic disorders as well...some of the labels use the term "psychosis" instead....some will say "other psychiatric disorders" or "unusual changes in behavior" as a catch-all. What they ALL agree on is that anyone on these medications should be closely SUPERVISED. Instead, we give them drugs, sometimes several kinds several times a day and send them off to school.

https://wileymicrositebuilder.com/p...ites/28/2016/02/Case-notes-SSRI-psychosis.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11235925

The takeaway may be this: the SSRIs do not cause psychosis....unless the person taking the drug already exhibits latent tendencies towards that behavior. When you start giving these drugs on a widespread basis...your probability of casting the net far enough to capture one of these sick individuals goes up proportionally.

What alternatives methods would you suggest we take to treat these people? How's about those the medicines have helped?
Undoubtedly there are people these medications help....but if you know anything about how the medical/pharmaceutical companies work with doctors, the doctors are often paid a percentage of the drug they prescribe...and they pass the drugs out like candy...again, it's easier to drug the kid than adjust and monitor his diet as well as discipline. It's easier for the parent(s) and a money maker for the doctor. What you also need to realize is that according to the FDA's own studies, there will be a certain percentage (IIRC it's under 1%) that use these drugs that will have these psychotic episodes. There are at least ~400M guns in the US. 2017 stats say 42% of households own one....and those are only the ones that self reported on the US Census. Do the math on how many kids are on SSRIs, that probably closer to half have guns in the home and then <1% will have one or more of these episodes. Kids aren't stupid. Even if the gun is secured, they likely will know how to access it.



Assume again that diet and the wide distribution of SSRIs are fair culprits. Know I respect, but don't draw similar conclusions to you sir here.

You strike me as a man who'd have less government and more freedom by your property rights arguments above--and that's absolutely your right to want that if so. Are we not reducing freedoms if we pass rules dictating what people can eat and take as medicine?
I have not advocated IN THE SLIGHTEST that we should legislate what people eat or use as medicine. I've said the relationship between SSRIs and rage monsters who kill should be examined. I've suggested that parents take a stronger role in raising their children and giving them proper nutrition and exercise to stave off what I believe to be poor eating habits and lack of exercise as an excuse to drug for ADHD. I AM NOT advocating that government step in and force parents to do so....I'm saying what parents should already do of their own volition.

And broken homes, parents that don't well raise kids...? I agree. I admit though to having no good idea on how to incentivize greater accountability when it come to raising kids. I take no sides here, but some have suggested downturns in crime have been linked to ways to prevent and terminate pregnancy and not have those children in the first place--much as I respect those who believe all life sacred.
I believe you're referring to Donohue-Levitt's study that abortions via Roe v. Wade reduced crime rates b/c the unwanted offspring weren't raised in homes of economic disparity and questionable parenting....and there's a lot of evidence to counter that viewpoint. To my mind though, the hypothesis does make sense. While I don't believe it's the only cause of the crime reduction, I do personally believe it was likely to have had an impact.

This article would seem to corroborate the hypothesis...to a point. http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

The topic is a lot more complicated than that....especially if one starts to look at the ramifications of Johnson's "Great Society" and discouraging the "nuclear family" model of child rearing. Further complications come in the form of changes in welfare assistance programs during those decades, new illicit drug epidemics, gun control laws...both more strict in nature as well as more lax, cultural changes, etc.





In some cases I think you're right. In others I know of people I consider wonderful parents who tried everything for their kids, including medicine, and often it helped.
I don't doubt that. The issue isn't for the children that need the help...they should definitely be prescribed psychotropic drugs to help manage their disease...however, the FDA warnings clearly state they should be monitored while on those drugs. Just what that means is open to discussion, but it *used to* mean that someone was hospitalized and closely monitored. Obviously this isn't a path to take lightly...and any child who is being placed in that type of situation (and their parents) should be given due process before such a thing is ordered. Now, if the parent(s) wishes to hospitalize a child b/c of behavioral issues instead of true mental health problems, there needs to be a check/balance to ensure the child's welfare and rights are not being compromised by a lackluster parent.



For me Mr. Sean the above is extreme, but not loony speak. Pharmaceutical firms do have strong lobbies to petition the FDA to expand a drug's indications, not reduce them. But we have seen times when blockbuster drugs have had contraindications assigned to them or pulled when unsafe, leading me to believe that our systems run better than they don't.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. There is far too much money involved (especially when you look at Big Pharma's profits in the US vs. other countries) for this to all be coincidence. The few times drug companies have been forced to pull a product have been because the side effects were so obvious and egregious that they couldn't be brushed under the rug. The reason the potential rage monster & SSRI link isn't being investigated, IMO, is to keep that low profile that will continue to allow the drugs to be used and sold.



I'm guessing cases like Burwell v. Hobby where companies can have religious beliefs, in addition to it's people, if it's hard to tease out the two, have no place in the America you wish be?
Like the rest of this post...this is a big tangent. And likely too long to really adequately cover here. Suffice it to say...the problem is one of Corporate Personhood as it pertains to campaign finance. I'll leave it at that....you can do your own research and come to your own conclusions.




I'm not sure sir if your claim is that our government isn't Capitalist or that if fails to support Capitalism or both. I suspect places where its broken make it less Capitalistic, and I known markets that are very competitive.



This Freidman reading introduced, in a different form, IMHO, many of the tradeoffs we discuss above between limiting liberties and what if any safety doing so provides us. Friedman sought free markets thinking government best sideline themselves. It's valid as long as one also realizes that when greed is allowed to thrive in absence of a level and safe playing field (legislation) things like dangerous products and anti-trust relationships, to name only two, can form.

The completely fair soccer game requires a referee, but one, to your point I think, that promotes, not detracts from the game.



I think we agree sir that we both want to see fair ways though to reduce these numbers.



Israel is a much more armed nation to begin with, good, bad or indifferent, agreed?



..a justice system that with the red flag laws you dislike--and I respect why (reduction of liberties)--might have prevented his actions....



That, I must admit, is a very fair point. We may only be able to put a dent in the problem. I hope I am wrong.
I'll have to get to the rest later....
 
Last edited:

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Threads
32
Messages
496
Reaction score
778
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
I'm not sure sir if your claim is that our government isn't Capitalist or that if fails to support Capitalism or both. I suspect places where its broken make it less Capitalistic, and I known markets that are very competitive.

This Freidman reading introduced, in a different form, IMHO, many of the tradeoffs we discuss above between limiting liberties and what if any safety doing so provides us. Friedman sought free markets thinking government best sideline themselves. It's valid as long as one also realizes that when greed is allowed to thrive in absence of a level and safe playing field (legislation) things like dangerous products and anti-trust relationships, to name only two, can form.
Completely agree on monopoly and product liability. For instance, the problem of the rising cost of health care in this country is due to the medical/pharmaceutical monopolies. The costs could be cut by 80% by simply enforcing existing Anti-Trust Laws (Sherman-Clayton, Robinson-Patman) and was a pillar of Trump's campaign promises (and one of the few reasons I voted for him), which he quickly reneged upon and deleted from his website once elected. The reasons are obvious....healthcare spending is currently ~20% of GDP...therefore an 80% reduction in costs would be a 16% reduction in GDP causing an instant (but necessary) recession. If one puts this economic decline in perspective, it will likely mimic the depression of 1920-21 which cleared the market in roughly 1.5 years and led directly to the economic boom of the "roaring 20s" if government would simply allow companies to eat their bad cooking rather than attempting to lessen the blow through Fed machinations. This theory (of cost reduction) is proven out by The Oklahoma Surgery Center and other medical practitioners who are adopting a cash only policy.




Israel is a much more armed nation to begin with, good, bad or indifferent, agreed?
Disagree...they are not "more armed" in terms of civilian gun ownership. They are more of a police state; not something that is congruent with freedom and liberty. They have few protections for their minorities or civil liberties; but also have common sense practices including profiling in areas where they have legitimate terrorist attack threats. It's not a system we should implement at all levels here in the US....but it is driven out of a deemed "necessity" and sense of "security". As Franklin said, (to paraphrase), "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporal security deserve neither"....and even more profound was William Pitt the Younger's assessment that, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."


..a justice system that with the red flag laws you dislike--and I respect why (reduction of liberties)--might have prevented his actions....
Records show that police were called to the FL shooter's residence over 20 times for domestic disturbances and many of those incidents resulted in injury to the family members he was living with which should have meant incarceration, charges filed and a potential criminal record . He made online and verbal threats that were not investigated and properly vetted by Federal, State and local authorities in spite of being warned MULTIPLE times about this young man's propensity towards violence months, weeks and days before he slaughtered his classmates. The system failed us and all his victims. This additional layer of "security" is about gun confiscation under color of law....not protecting anyone. The authorities failed in this and many other instances of mass shooters, and I believe the left in this country is using these shootings as the main vehicle to chip away at the fundamental right of firearms ownership. As Hilter said,
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

***EDITED TO ADD: A few key points, some bold, and a quote***
 
Last edited:

Rahneld

Banned
Banned
Banned
First Name
Ronald
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Threads
62
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
692
Location
Boston
Vehicle(s)
JL Wrangler
Completely agree on monopoly and product liability. For instance, the problem of the rising cost of health care in this country is due to the medical/pharmaceutical monopolies....
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the above.

You are correct--and I don't say this smugly--you are more informed on these issues than I am; which means I best do my homework and read up: especially at the places you've mentioned.

This is not an attempt to avoid further discussion but simply that I am out of good content. I hope you saw none of our exchanges as fights but discussion.

I wish you well and respect your opinions, and agree with a fair share.

Peace.
 

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Threads
32
Messages
496
Reaction score
778
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the above.

You are correct--and I don't say this smugly--you are more informed on these issues than I am; which means I best do my homework and read up: especially at the places you've mentioned.

This is not an attempt to avoid further discussion but simply that I am out of good content. I hope you saw none of our exchanges as fights but discussion.

I wish you well and respect your opinions, and agree with a fair share.

Peace.
Nope, I saw this as a discussion. I *thought* I was just discussing the topic of our justice system with the others in this thread, but based on the personal attacks, I'd say I was mistaken. ;) Funny...I re-read the thread the other day to look over all my posts. I don't see anything that was a direct insult to police...simply observations based on facts. Maybe it's just a case of shooting the messenger. :shrug:

I appreciate the civil discourse. Thanks to you as well.
 

WranglerMan

Well-Known Member
First Name
Will
Joined
May 8, 2018
Threads
100
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
2,693
Location
Katy Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler JLU Sahara
Occupation
Gas Pipeliner
Vehicle Showcase
1
My thoughts. Guy is a dumb @ss. He first fires while the police officer is still next to the vehicle as it speeds away. Did he try to do right, yes but in no way do you fire towards anyone without an intent to kill. Neat but he wrecked his Jeep and put a deputy in danger. Watch the last few seconds when it's in slo-mo and you'll hear the gunfire with the officer still reaching/grabbing for the guy.

To add - the Officer never fired that I can tell.
Not going to get into any debate but really stupid move by this guy, if anything he should have just blocked him with his Jeep but to squeeze off rounds like that was pretty careless to say the least.
 

Sponsored

DrPerez007

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steve
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Threads
6
Messages
273
Reaction score
810
Location
Wisconsin
Vehicle(s)
See Signature
Occupation
Public Safety & Legal Consultant
The whole point about the "cop killer bullets," for those of you too young to remember or even know what this is about, was not about a particular round (and there were and are already plenty of rounds out there that could kill police officers that were not targeted "cop killer bullets" at the time, per se), it was the attitude of the NRA during this controversy wherein the NRA (or those strongly supporting the NRA) stated it would never support any restrictions on ammunition regardless of what they might be used for, including criminal activity. The NRA made some half-ass statement about supporting "America's law enforcement," but continued to advocate for these rounds to be sold even if their purpose was nefarious.

Am I glad the NRA exists? Yes, for the most part. But let's keep all of this in context.
 

mwilk012

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Threads
14
Messages
8,922
Reaction score
8,747
Location
Oklahoma
Vehicle(s)
2018 Ocean Blue JLU Rubicon
Occupation
Service
The whole point about the "cop killer bullets," for those of you too young to remember or even know what this is about, was not about a particular round (and there were and are already plenty of rounds out there that could kill police officers that were not targeted "cop killer bullets" at the time, per se), it was the attitude of the NRA during this controversy wherein the NRA (or those strongly supporting the NRA) stated it would never support any restrictions on ammunition regardless of what they might be used for, including criminal activity. The NRA made some half-ass statement about supporting "America's law enforcement," but continued to advocate for these rounds to be sold even if their purpose was nefarious.

Am I glad the NRA exists? Yes, for the most part. But let's keep all of this in context.
I'm glad that they take a strong stance against government overreach, given that the purpose of owning firearms is primarily for the defense against tyranny as outlined in the constitution. Limits on ammunition types if allowed in any capacity could simply be expanded to reduce the lethality of the populace and aid in our subjugation. No thanks.
 

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Threads
32
Messages
496
Reaction score
778
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
The whole point about the "cop killer bullets," for those of you too young to remember or even know what this is about, was not about a particular round (and there were and are already plenty of rounds out there that could kill police officers that were not targeted "cop killer bullets" at the time, per se), it was the attitude of the NRA during this controversy wherein the NRA (or those strongly supporting the NRA) stated it would never support any restrictions on ammunition regardless of what they might be used for, including criminal activity. The NRA made some half-ass statement about supporting "America's law enforcement," but continued to advocate for these rounds to be sold even if their purpose was nefarious.

Am I glad the NRA exists? Yes, for the most part. But let's keep all of this in context.

And after Ruby Ridge (might have also included Waco, I can't remember now), the NRA referred to some in LE as "jack booted thugs"......but such is freedom of speech just as freedom of association allows people to boycott or not do business with NRA over statements with which they do not agree. I support both concepts in their entirety.

I will never be an NRA member b/c they have had a hand in helping to pass every major gun control legislation act since GCA of '68...and were very reluctant to help with the Heller and McDonald cases until SAF and GOA already had done the heavy lifting. NRA is fond of compromising on the 2A. SAF and GOA are far better in that regard.

***EDIT*** By the way, I'm positive the NRA said they would not support ANY restrictions on ammunition (I doubt they said "including criminal activity")....b/c just like guns, ammo is an inanimate object and is incapable of evil deeds. Anyone arguing the opposite clearly doesn't understand the 2A and lacks the common sense regarding wherein blames lies when a crime occurs.

***EDIT2*** Defeating body armor is not "nefarious". The intent of shooting at human beings is, under legal guidelines, to stop the threat. Armor is not solely relegated to LE, as anyone can and should be able to buy a piece of safety equipment and therefore being able to defeat said protection should the wearer be infringing upon the natural rights of another is perfectly acceptable. I should note that mwilk "liked" this post prior to EDIT2...so it's entirely possible he doesn't agree with that sentiment...JFYI.
Sponsored

 
Last edited:
 



Top