Would you disarm?
Push comes to shove and guns are outlawed would you disarm?
0
-
I possess a bill of sale for every firearm I've purchased through NCIS. They were all sold to private parties a year or so after I purchased them. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You have not been down in 'Dixie' and got to know the 'sportsmen' here have you??? The 'urban' sportsmen' may give their guns up with out a fight (other than in court) but things are not the same in the 'country'!!![;)]
Two words: Jim Zumbo0 -
Jim Rau and LT496 i salute you. I don't like cops but you gentlemen sound like real policemen to me and I would back you to the hilt. If they come for the guns and their casuallty rate is 50% I guarantee they won't be able to find enough clowns to carry out their mission. I am old and don't have too many years left. I would gladly go down fightinhg for my Secon Amendment which I took and oath to.
quote:I, Gotteskrieger, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.0 -
I have a friend who got disarmed during Katrina whom use to brag the only way they would get them would be muzzle first. In his defence they did catch him by surprise he thought they was going thru the neighborhood just to check on them. Next thing he knew he had a m 16 pointed at hin while they were going thru his house and grabing his guns. this is the only one he has gotten back
[img][/img]
0 -
quote:Originally posted by savage170
I have a friend who got disarmed during Katrina whom use to brag the only way they would get them would be muzzle first. In his defence they did catch him by surprise he thought they was going thru the neighborhood just to check on them. Next thing he knew he had a m 16 pointed at hin while they were going thru his house and grabing his guns. this is the only one he has gotten back
[img][/img]
This whole Katrina mess should have told you that the cops will do as they are told.0 -
No, and no, I WOULD NOT CONFISCATE ANY WEAPONS. I took an oath to defend the constitution, and if I remember correctly, the RTKBA is still part of the constitution. Like, Jim, I too have had this conversation with many other officers, and every one of them has said they would not take part in such an obamanation. We "country boys" like our guns. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
No, and no, I WOULD NOT CONFISCATE ANY WEAPONS. I took an oath to defend the constitution, and if I remember correctly, the RTKBA is still part of the constitution. Like, Jim, I too have had this conversation with many other officers, and every one of them has said they would not take part in such an obamanation. We "country boys" like our guns.
Horsepiss.
Almost every one of them would take a firearm from a convicted felon today, correct?
Almost every one of them would take a firearm from anyone suspected to be illegally possessing it today, correct?
For all their talk, almost every one of them would take a firearm from someone suspected of illegally possessing it in the future.
Guess what? If guns are outlawed, almost all of these folks would behave just as they behave today.
They crap on an individual's Right to Keep and Bear Arms today under the banner of Public Safety. They pretend that extenuating circumstances make their actions something other than what they are.
Most will continue to crap on the RTKBA because they are followers of what their bosses tell them to do.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Most will continue to crap on the RTKBA because they are followers of what their bosses Socialist UNION Leaders tell them to do.
Corrected for the reality of today.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
No, and no, I WOULD NOT CONFISCATE ANY WEAPONS. I took an oath to defend the constitution, and if I remember correctly, the RTKBA is still part of the constitution. Like, Jim, I too have had this conversation with many other officers, and every one of them has said they would not take part in such an obamanation. We "country boys" like our guns.
I know a number of fellow cops who say the same thing.
There is a core group of us where I work who have very specifically discussed the issue and other related issues, in great detail. I believe that this group will stand fast on the Constitution.
The general topic has been discussed a number of other times in broader settings not only with persons outside the constitutionalist-group I mentioned, but also with police from different agencies.
Very few cops would 'say' otherwise when confronted with such a question. Yet, when most cops are faced with a 'victimless' firearms crime, e.g. concealed in a vehicle or on a person, or in a location prohibited, etc...many of those same cops unhesitatingly arrest and confiscate the firearm, regardless of any 'bad-act' being committed or even the suspicion of any bad-act.
This applies to any number of other 'laws' of like manner.
It is 'the law' afterall.
If a gun-ban went through and it became 'the law', I can only look at the general population's acceptance, grudging or otherwise, of government predations and anti-constitution 'laws' and look at our steadfast LEOs who go forth and 'enforce' such laws and who are merely a cross-section of that general population.
Katrina clearly indicated the widespread willingness of 'LEOs' to confiscate firearms in violation of the Constitution. Decades of researchable police actions support that a large percentage of cops will do and enforce whatever is 'the law' and do what they are directed to do. As I have seen it.
Couple that with the 'absolute' of losing one's job, pension, freedom, etc, for failure to comply/failure to enforce and, well, I see a far different picture.
Many 'country boys' (I am a 'country boy' myself) like their guns, but when more is at stake than ones rhetoric, things tend to change, in my experience and observation.
I see NO widespread constitutionalist movement developing or existing in policing...quite the opposite, actually.
We shall likely see, someday.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
No, and no, I WOULD NOT CONFISCATE ANY WEAPONS. I took an oath to defend the constitution, and if I remember correctly, the RTKBA is still part of the constitution. Like, Jim, I too have had this conversation with many other officers, and every one of them has said they would not take part in such an obamanation. We "country boys" like our guns.
Horsepiss.
Almost every one of them would take a firearm from a convicted felon today, correct?
Almost every one of them would take a firearm from anyone suspected to be illegally possessing it today, correct?
For all their talk, almost every one of them would take a firearm from someone suspected of illegally possessing it in the future.
Guess what? If guns are outlawed, almost all of these folks would behave just as they behave today.
They crap on an individual's Right to Keep and Bear Arms today under the banner of Public Safety. They pretend that extenuating circumstances make their actions something other than what they are.
Most will continue to crap on the RTKBA because they are followers of what their bosses tell them to do.
I am referring to an all-out ban or confiscation. If the person has a legal right to otherwise possess the gun, I WILL NOT unconstitutionally, thus illegally, deprive that person of any firearms. On the other hand, there are consequences of one's actions, and if you commit a crime that revokes your rights, sorry, you committed the crime knowing the costs. There are those in this society that have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to "legally" possess guns. Sorry, but that is a fact of life.
However, I do believe in second chances. If a person commits a crime, serves the time and punishment, and it's a one time thing, I do not feel a person should be punished for life, and thus they should have all rights restored. It's the repeat offender that should lose these rights for good.
But all of this is for another topic.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
I see NO widespread constitutionalist movement developing or existing in policing...quite the opposite, actually.
We shall likely see, someday.
Lt, I hope for our sake, you are wrong. I feel an out-right ban would be a huge dividing line that would fracture our profession and it would be "us" vs "them". But, I also see this type of move fracturing the U.S. Military as well. There are those that would follow any orders, and then there are those, like us, who take thier oath seriously and to heart.0 -
A gun grab would sure signal the official SHTF situation.
IMHO everyone should have already made plans for this since groups of gun owners are much harder to disarm.
Gotta love redneck friends with guns and lots of ammo. [:)]0 -
What did they do store confiscated guns in the swamp?
quote:Originally posted by savage170
I have a friend who got disarmed during Katrina whom use to brag the only way they would get them would be muzzle first. In his defence they did catch him by surprise he thought they was going thru the neighborhood just to check on them. Next thing he knew he had a m 16 pointed at hin while they were going thru his house and grabing his guns. this is the only one he has gotten back
[img][/img]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
No, and no, I WOULD NOT CONFISCATE ANY WEAPONS. I took an oath to defend the constitution, and if I remember correctly, the RTKBA is still part of the constitution. Like, Jim, I too have had this conversation with many other officers, and every one of them has said they would not take part in such an obamanation. We "country boys" like our guns.
Horsepiss.
Almost every one of them would take a firearm from a convicted felon today, correct?
Almost every one of them would take a firearm from anyone suspected to be illegally possessing it today, correct?
For all their talk, almost every one of them would take a firearm from someone suspected of illegally possessing it in the future.
Guess what? If guns are outlawed, almost all of these folks would behave just as they behave today.
They crap on an individual's Right to Keep and Bear Arms today under the banner of Public Safety. They pretend that extenuating circumstances make their actions something other than what they are.
Most will continue to crap on the RTKBA because they are followers of what their bosses tell them to do.
That is pretty much the way I see it, also, Don.
Unpopular as an assessment to be sure, but I believe it to be accurate.
That is not to say that there will not be some percentage (dare I say 3%) of people, the police and the military, that will revolt with all available means if that dreaded day ever arrives, but I believe that 3% figure is as good a SWAG as any, based on my observations from the inside.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
quote:Originally posted by lt496
I see NO widespread constitutionalist movement developing or existing in policing...quite the opposite, actually.
We shall likely see, someday.
Lt, I hope for our sake, you are wrong. I feel an out-right ban would be a huge dividing line that would fracture our profession and it would be "us" vs "them". But, I also see this type of move fracturing the U.S. Military as well. There are those that would follow any orders, and then there are those, like us, who take thier oath seriously and to heart.
I hope so too, David, but I don't believe that I am.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
I am referring to an all-out ban or confiscation. If the person has a legal right to otherwise possess the gun, I WILL NOT unconstitutionally, thus illegally, deprive that person of any firearms. On the other hand, there are consequences of one's actions, and if you commit a crime that revokes your rights, sorry, you committed the crime knowing the costs. There are those in this society that have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to "legally" possess guns. Sorry, but that is a fact of life.
However, I do believe in second chances. If a person commits a crime, serves the time and punishment, and it's a one time thing, I do not feel a person should be punished for life, and thus they should have all rights restored. It's the repeat offender that should lose these rights for good.
But all of this is for another topic.[;)]
So would you confiscate this person's firearm or would you not?
He does not currently have a legal right of possession, but those you originally referenced would confiscate today, and you probably would as well. The person does not fit your qualifications in the first sentence above.
Permit me to be skeptical that somehow magically you and all your friends will stand on a principle in the future that you ignore today.0 -
I'll gladly give mine up.....WHEN I AM DEAD !!!! 0 -
Sent ALL mine to Remlap [:0] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
I am referring to an all-out ban or confiscation. If the person has a legal right to otherwise possess the gun, I WILL NOT unconstitutionally, thus illegally, deprive that person of any firearms. On the other hand, there are consequences of one's actions, and if you commit a crime that revokes your rights, sorry, you committed the crime knowing the costs. There are those in this society that have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to "legally" possess guns. Sorry, but that is a fact of life.
However, I do believe in second chances. If a person commits a crime, serves the time and punishment, and it's a one time thing, I do not feel a person should be punished for life, and thus they should have all rights restored. It's the repeat offender that should lose these rights for good.
But all of this is for another topic.[;)]
So would you confiscate this person's firearm or would you not?
He does not currently have a legal right of possession, but those you originally referenced would confiscate today, and you probably would as well. The person does not fit your qualifications in the first sentence above.
Permit me to be skeptical that somehow magically you and all your friends will stand on a principle in the future that you ignore today.
This, of course, is getting to the crux of my earlier point about the likely actions of the majority of police in the grim scenario posed in the OP.
Peeling away layers and boiling things down to their bottom-line generally results in a clear picture to base one's assessments on, in my experience.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
I am referring to an all-out ban or confiscation. If the person has a legal right to otherwise possess the gun, I WILL NOT unconstitutionally, thus illegally, deprive that person of any firearms. On the other hand, there are consequences of one's actions, and if you commit a crime that revokes your rights, sorry, you committed the crime knowing the costs. There are those in this society that have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to "legally" possess guns. Sorry, but that is a fact of life.
However, I do believe in second chances. If a person commits a crime, serves the time and punishment, and it's a one time thing, I do not feel a person should be punished for life, and thus they should have all rights restored. It's the repeat offender that should lose these rights for good.
But all of this is for another topic.[;)]
So would you confiscate this person's firearm or would you not?
He does not currently have a legal right of possession, but those you originally referenced would confiscate today, and you probably would as well. The person does not fit your qualifications in the first sentence above.
Permit me to be skeptical that somehow magically you and all your friends will stand on a principle in the future that you ignore today.
It's not my qualifications. Here is where I stand, point blank, popular or not. If a person is otherwise legally allowed to own a firearm, as it is today, i.e, no felony convictions, no history of mental instability, no history of domestic violence, then I will not disarm them or confiscate that weapon. I will not participate in a government gun grab just because they say that gun and this gun are illegal now. I look at it more from the individual involved rather than the gun involved.
Let me explain. If the individual has lost the right to own, possess a firearm, then that individual has been "banned" from gun ownership and, yes, I will do my job and seize that gun. If they try to ban guns just because they are guns and not the individuals, that is where I draw the line.
You know, there are many ways I can "enforce" the law. Whether it be through verbal warning, written warning, citation or arrest and jail, officer discretion goes along way in my neck of the woods.
There is no perfect solution, there is no way to make everyone happy. Some of us who honestly try to do the right thing, uphold the principles of our founding fathers and the constitution, sometimes we get caught between the rock and a hard place. I can not speak for any other officer, and perhaps I did speak out of line when referencing my co-workers; I truly do not know where they would stand or fall. I like to think I do, but one never knows until faced with the reality. I can only speak for myself and I let my conscience be my guide. As long as I try to do the right thing, then I will have no guilt or remorse.0 -
Absolutely not. I would tell the wife unit if she was home to take the animals and leave the house. I would stay and defend my firearms with my firearms. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Leeroy Jenkins
quote:Originally posted by rong
It would never come to that.
Long before that issue the biggest
Army in the world ,would/should
rise up. American hunters!
(and hunters are mostly snipers
and quite stealthy!)
Taking a shot at a deer that has been baited from under 100 yards from the comfort of a deer blind does not make one a sniper.
What if you're sitting in your truck, with the gun propped on the mirror and the deer is 600yds away walking across a pasture? doed that suffice?0 -
Why would I cut My Arms off? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
I am referring to an all-out ban or confiscation. If the person has a legal right to otherwise possess the gun, I WILL NOT unconstitutionally, thus illegally, deprive that person of any firearms. On the other hand, there are consequences of one's actions, and if you commit a crime that revokes your rights, sorry, you committed the crime knowing the costs. There are those in this society that have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to "legally" possess guns. Sorry, but that is a fact of life.
However, I do believe in second chances. If a person commits a crime, serves the time and punishment, and it's a one time thing, I do not feel a person should be punished for life, and thus they should have all rights restored. It's the repeat offender that should lose these rights for good.
But all of this is for another topic.[;)]
So would you confiscate this person's firearm or would you not?
He does not currently have a legal right of possession, but those you originally referenced would confiscate today, and you probably would as well. The person does not fit your qualifications in the first sentence above.
Permit me to be skeptical that somehow magically you and all your friends will stand on a principle in the future that you ignore today.
It's not my qualifications. Here is where I stand, point blank, popular or not. If a person is otherwise legally allowed to own a firearm, as it is today, i.e, no felony convictions, no history of mental instability, no history of domestic violence, then I will not disarm them or confiscate that weapon. I will not participate in a government gun grab just because they say that gun and this gun are illegal now. I look at it more from the individual involved rather than the gun involved.
Let me explain. If the individual has lost the right to own, possess a firearm, then that individual has been "banned" from gun ownership and, yes, I will do my job and seize that gun. If they try to ban guns just because they are guns and not the individuals, that is where I draw the line.
You know, there are many ways I can "enforce" the law. Whether it be through verbal warning, written warning, citation or arrest and jail, officer discretion goes along way in my neck of the woods.
There is no perfect solution, there is no way to make everyone happy. Some of us who honestly try to do the right thing, uphold the principles of our founding fathers and the constitution, sometimes we get caught between the rock and a hard place. I can not speak for any other officer, and perhaps I did speak out of line when referencing my co-workers; I truly do not know where they would stand or fall. I like to think I do, but one never knows until faced with the reality. I can only speak for myself and I let my conscience be my guide. As long as I try to do the right thing, then I will have no guilt or remorse.
The above restrictions on fire arms are incorrect. DV is not reason to disarm anyone for more than 48 hours to allow them to cool off. The Federal DV law is BS, no its CS!!![:(!]
CCW is not reason to arrest and confiscate if there are not aggravating circumstances like intoxication or 'out of control'! Then it should not permanently prohibit them for their rights.
The only time a person should be permanently prohibited is when they demonstrated through their actions that they will continue to victimize others violently.0 -
No one has noted that this is the most quiet administration or also known as the Obama administration in the past 20 years on gun control. Really think about it ? How much has gun control been spoken by any government in the past 3 years ?
If this man is re-elected he has nothing to lose and look for him to either ban them outright or if not re-elected look for him to do a administrative order leaving office.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
I am referring to an all-out ban or confiscation. If the person has a legal right to otherwise possess the gun, I WILL NOT unconstitutionally, thus illegally, deprive that person of any firearms. On the other hand, there are consequences of one's actions, and if you commit a crime that revokes your rights, sorry, you committed the crime knowing the costs. There are those in this society that have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to "legally" possess guns. Sorry, but that is a fact of life.
However, I do believe in second chances. If a person commits a crime, serves the time and punishment, and it's a one time thing, I do not feel a person should be punished for life, and thus they should have all rights restored. It's the repeat offender that should lose these rights for good.
But all of this is for another topic.[;)]
So would you confiscate this person's firearm or would you not?
He does not currently have a legal right of possession, but those you originally referenced would confiscate today, and you probably would as well. The person does not fit your qualifications in the first sentence above.
Permit me to be skeptical that somehow magically you and all your friends will stand on a principle in the future that you ignore today.
It's not my qualifications. Here is where I stand, point blank, popular or not. If a person is otherwise legally allowed to own a firearm, as it is today, i.e, no felony convictions, no history of mental instability, no history of domestic violence, then I will not disarm them or confiscate that weapon. I will not participate in a government gun grab just because they say that gun and this gun are illegal now. I look at it more from the individual involved rather than the gun involved.
Let me explain. If the individual has lost the right to own, possess a firearm, then that individual has been "banned" from gun ownership and, yes, I will do my job and seize that gun. If they try to ban guns just because they are guns and not the individuals, that is where I draw the line.
You know, there are many ways I can "enforce" the law. Whether it be through verbal warning, written warning, citation or arrest and jail, officer discretion goes along way in my neck of the woods.
There is no perfect solution, there is no way to make everyone happy. Some of us who honestly try to do the right thing, uphold the principles of our founding fathers and the constitution, sometimes we get caught between the rock and a hard place. I can not speak for any other officer, and perhaps I did speak out of line when referencing my co-workers; I truly do not know where they would stand or fall. I like to think I do, but one never knows until faced with the reality. I can only speak for myself and I let my conscience be my guide. As long as I try to do the right thing, then I will have no guilt or remorse.
The above restrictions on fire arms are incorrect. DV is not reason to disarm anyone for more than 48 hours to allow them to cool off. The Federal DV law is BS, no its CS!!![:(!]
CCW is not reason to arrest and confiscate if there are not aggravating circumstances like intoxication or 'out of control'! Then it should not permanently prohibit them for their rights.
The only time a person should be permanently prohibited is when they demonstrated through their actions that they will continue to victimize others violently.
Any person convicted of a domestic violence related crime is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under both federal and Georgia state law. Again, the consequence of one's chosen actions.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with your above statement.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Duce1
No one has noted that this is the most quiet administration or also known as the Obama administration in the past 20 years on gun control. Really think about it ? How much has gun control been spoken by any government in the past 3 years ?
If this man is re-elected he has nothing to lose and look for him to either ban them outright or if not re-elected look for him to do a administrative order leaving office.
He has intentionally steered clear of gun control legislation knowing that if he introduced anything, he would be a one and done. If re-elected, hold on 'cuz there is going to be an absolute attack on gun ownership and rights. He would have nothing left to lose then.0 -
The goings on in DC and other important places where important people do important things, is far away from my little world. Whatever nonsense they call laws that I am supposed to obey, may or may not filter through to me. Most of what I hear of what the laws say I should do, comes from the guys at the barber shop or from overhearing gossiping ladies at the grocery store. Most of it I don't believe is accurate or think the teller is pulling my leg on purpose. Banning guns is like banning mosquitoes. Might seem like a good idea, but implementation is going to be a problem. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by lksmith03
quote:Originally posted by Leeroy Jenkins
quote:Originally posted by rong
It would never come to that.
Long before that issue the biggest
Army in the world ,would/should
rise up. American hunters!
(and hunters are mostly snipers
and quite stealthy!)
Taking a shot at a deer that has been baited from under 100 yards from the comfort of a deer blind does not make one a sniper.
What if you're sitting in your truck, with the gun propped on the mirror and the deer is 600yds away walking across a pasture? doed that suffice?
I'm not a combat veteran, but my guess would be that it may be somewhat easier to calmly snipe a deer from a distant vantage point than several human targets who are as well armed, better trained, and more than willing to return fire.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wartiger
It's not my qualifications. Here is where I stand, point blank, popular or not. If a person is otherwise legally allowed to own a firearm, as it is today, i.e, no felony convictions, no history of mental instability, no history of domestic violence, then I will not disarm them or confiscate that weapon. I will not participate in a government gun grab just because they say that gun and this gun are illegal now. I look at it more from the individual involved rather than the gun involved.
Let me explain. If the individual has lost the right to own, possess a firearm, then that individual has been "banned" from gun ownership and, yes, I will do my job and seize that gun. If they try to ban guns just because they are guns and not the individuals, that is where I draw the line.
You know, there are many ways I can "enforce" the law. Whether it be through verbal warning, written warning, citation or arrest and jail, officer discretion goes along way in my neck of the woods.
There is no perfect solution, there is no way to make everyone happy. Some of us who honestly try to do the right thing, uphold the principles of our founding fathers and the constitution, sometimes we get caught between the rock and a hard place. I can not speak for any other officer, and perhaps I did speak out of line when referencing my co-workers; I truly do not know where they would stand or fall. I like to think I do, but one never knows until faced with the reality. I can only speak for myself and I let my conscience be my guide. As long as I try to do the right thing, then I will have no guilt or remorse.
I can respect your position, wartiger, but it is a nuanced position that is not as pure as you would have us believe.
I can only assume that you would support the Full Auto Ban if you can accross an un-licensed select fire weapon. This is ban on guns, just because they are guns.
If an individual is carrying concealled absent a license where one is required by law, do you look away?
We are in the midst of a Gun Grab right now. It is, like most infrigements on freedom, and incremental event that takes place over time. Each mini-grab is justifiable to the majority, and the majority of LEOs have always gone along with it. This grab has, as noted above, included blanket bans on types of arms. It also includes large segments of the population for various reasons, some within and some outside of the control of those individuals. Doing the right thing, as new classes of firearms, and new classes of individuals are added to the list will be a test of your conscience.
I appreciate your candor. You have obviously given this quite a bit of thought, and I believe that such reflection is important for one in your position.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
97 comments