Political Crossfire Forums

[whatsthepoint]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.

[TNBiologist]

If it truely was an automatic weapon and was purchased legally then this man had to pass a very stiff government background check. In that case what would you suggest the government do? If he purchased an automatic weapon illegally then no gun control in the world would have stopped it.

http://www.vectorarms.com/instructions/how_to_own.html

You can be the first on your block to legally own a machine gun, or other NFA weapon, if you meet these federal requirements:
You must be a U.S. citizen over 21 years of age.
You must live in a state that allows Class 3 weapons (find out here).
You must be clear of any felonies as verified by an F.B.I. background check.
You must submit a fingerprint card and two passport photos, which are kept on file by the BATF.
You must obtain a signature from your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer verifying that you have no felony indictments pending against you, and are mentally stable.
You must pay a one-time federal tax for each NFA weapon or suppressor purchased. Full auto $200.00. Short Barreled Rife (SBR) $200.00. Suppressor $200.00. Any Other Weapon (AOW) $5.00.

[whatsthepoint]

Quote: [quote="TNBiologist"]If it truely was an automatic weapon and was purchased legally then this man had to pass a very stiff government background check. In that case what would you suggest the government do? If he purchased an automatic weapon illegally then no gun control in the world would have stopped it. Ban all automatic weapns.

[mattman42]

I have a few thoughts on this article.

1. It isn't uncommon for the media to call most every gun an "automatic weapon", so I wouldn't take that as fact just yet.

2. If it was indeed an automatic weapon, who here thinks that this individual followed the strict guidelines set forth by the 1934 National Firearms Act in obtaining the weapon? I doubt it personally. Perhaps this is an indication that if an individual wants to obtain a particular firearm, they will do so regardless of any laws that prohibit them from doing so.

3. If it was indeed an automatic weapon, this is another example of just how dangerous they are - 1 perp dead, everyone else still alive.

4. If an armed citizen had been in the area, the shootout could've possibly been ended sooner. The police officer that shot the suspect used his weapon effectively. A citizen could have just as well.

All in all, I don't know what you're trying to prove by posting this article. What law would've prevented this from happening? Possessing an automatic firearm is illegal if it isn't from before 1986 and registered (this is assuming it was actually a full-auto, which I doubt). Murder is illegal but that didn't stop him from trying it. I'm willing to bet that having a loaded gun in his car was illegal, though I'm not too familiar with S.C.'s laws. Would any number of laws have stopped this? I doubt it.

There are some bad apples in every bunch. Think of it like this for a moment - one individual with a gun apparently lost it; 200,000,000 other individuals with guns didn't. The funny thing is that you don't hear about those other 2 million who would probably never even consider doing something like this, instead you just hear about the ones that do.

Overall, I'm glad that this individual was the only one removed from the gene pool.

[Jefferson]

whatsthepoint wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.

Was I there?
Did I know him?
Did we plan this together?

The leave me and my guns alone. Your sicko ideas on gun control are aimed at me and not at people like this.

If you got your way. All political ideas would be controlled because someone else abused thier first amendment. All privacy would be gone because other people hide things against the law. All property ownership would be banned because someone else abused thier property ownership.

[Wolverine]

whatsthepoint wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.
Just think, a gun free zone too. Except for law enforcement that is.

Quote: Ban all automatic weapns.
Why?
Quote: In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

[Magepro]

whatsthepoint wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I love your posts lol.

Guns should be ban. If you are not someone of importance, I doubt anyone would come after your pathetic life, or that thing you calll a wife.

Well, maybe an exception could be made for people of importance, like Politicians, Lawyers, and ofcourse, Postal works!!!
:lol: :lol:

[Lucky Luke]

Wolverine wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.
Just think, a gun free zone too. Except for law enforcement that is.

Quote: Ban all automatic weapns.
Why?
Quote: In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

Why except for law enforcement?

Officers can enforce the law without guns here.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Magepro wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I love your posts lol.

Guns should be ban. If you are not someone of importance, I doubt anyone would come after your pathetic life, or that thing you calll a wife.

Well, maybe an exception could be made for people of importance, like Politicians, Lawyers, and ofcourse, Postal works!!!
:lol: :lol:

Very few wives murder their husbands, look out for the son armed with the father's handgun.

As for workers taxi drivers are on the top of the list in America and the well armed police officers come second, so much for handguns protecting people!
:-D
:-D

[TNBiologist]

Lucky Luke wrote: Wolverine wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.
Just think, a gun free zone too. Except for law enforcement that is.

Quote: Ban all automatic weapns.
Why?
Quote: In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

Why except for law enforcement?

Officers can enforce the law without guns here.
:-D
:-D

Are you really serious? Unarmed law enforcement officers going up against an armed suspect is a death warrent for the law enforcement officers. Unarmed law enforcement officers may work in parts of europe but over here it woudl be a death warrent. Try sending unarmed officers into south central LA or the south Texas border. Not a good idea.

[whatsthepoint]

Magepro wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I love your posts lol.

Guns should be ban. If you are not someone of importance, I doubt anyone would come after your pathetic life, or that thing you calll a wife.

Well, maybe an exception could be made for people of importance, like Politicians, Lawyers, and ofcourse, Postal works!!!
:lol: :lol: Personal attacks is all you can come up with. How pathetic you must be. How about this , move out of your moms basement stop having sex with the dog and get a productive thought. My 11 year old sister like's to use smiley's alot too, you two have a lot in common.

[whatsthepoint]

Jefferson wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.

Was I there?
Did I know him?
Did we plan this together?

The leave me and my guns alone. Your sicko ideas on gun control are aimed at me and not at people like this.

If you got your way. All political ideas would be controlled because someone else abused thier first amendment. All privacy would be gone because other people hide things against the law. All property ownership would be banned because someone else abused thier property ownership. I couldn't tell you if you were there or not , maybe. You could have known him. You could have planned it together. Leave your guns alone. I'm sorry but i don't know where you live so i can't hold or touch your guns , so don't start crying on me. You don't know my other political ideas so stop assuming. We are in a gun control forum so try to stay on topic.

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote:

Are you really serious? Unarmed law enforcement officers going up against an armed suspect is a death warrent for the law enforcement officers. Unarmed law enforcement officers may work in parts of europe but over here it woudl be a death warrent. Try sending unarmed officers into south central LA or the south Texas border. Not a good idea.

I am very serious indeed the large majority of our police force is unarmed and they want it to stay that way. A quick look at the number of murders of law enforcement officers in America reassures them that they've got it right.
After five to ten years of strict gun control laws, your police force should be able to conduct their business unarmed and a lot safer than they are doing today.
:-D
:-D

[TNBiologist]

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote:

Are you really serious? Unarmed law enforcement officers going up against an armed suspect is a death warrent for the law enforcement officers. Unarmed law enforcement officers may work in parts of europe but over here it woudl be a death warrent. Try sending unarmed officers into south central LA or the south Texas border. Not a good idea.

I am very serious indeed the large majority of our police force is unarmed and they want it to stay that way. A quick look at the number of murders of law enforcement officers in America reassures them that they've got it right.
After five to ten years of strict gun control laws, your police force should be able to conduct their business unarmed and a lot safer than they are doing today.
:-D
:-D

Just how do you suggest getting the guns that are already here off the street? Even if you stop manufacturing and importing guns you are still left will millions of guns in the US, many of which are illegal now. You can't excatly ask the criminals to turn them in and expect them to do it. I really don't see unarmed police ever working in this county.

I have a question, your police are unarmed, is that all police or just most of them? What happens when something like the South Carolina Courthouse shooting happens? If your police are unarmed and a person manages to get their hands on an "automatic" weapon, who stops him and how long does it take? How many people has he killed while the police are looking for a gun themselves?

[ikari]

Wonder what the courts did that pissed the man off so much.

[Jefferson]

whatsthepoint wrote: Jefferson wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12070974/ Looks like this citizen decided to exercise is 2nd amendment right to use a automatic weapon. He probably bought it for hunting quail.

Was I there?
Did I know him?
Did we plan this together?

The leave me and my guns alone. Your sicko ideas on gun control are aimed at me and not at people like this.

If you got your way. All political ideas would be controlled because someone else abused thier first amendment. All privacy would be gone because other people hide things against the law. All property ownership would be banned because someone else abused thier property ownership. I couldn't tell you if you were there or not , maybe. You could have known him. You could have planned it together. Leave your guns alone. I'm sorry but i don't know where you live so i can't hold or touch your guns , so don't start crying on me. You don't know my other political ideas so stop assuming. We are in a gun control forum so try to stay on topic.

Well guns in my country is an American subject and none of your business.

[Jefferson]

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote:

Are you really serious? Unarmed law enforcement officers going up against an armed suspect is a death warrent for the law enforcement officers. Unarmed law enforcement officers may work in parts of europe but over here it woudl be a death warrent. Try sending unarmed officers into south central LA or the south Texas border. Not a good idea.

I am very serious indeed the large majority of our police force is unarmed and they want it to stay that way. A quick look at the number of murders of law enforcement officers in America reassures them that they've got it right.
After five to ten years of strict gun control laws, your police force should be able to conduct their business unarmed and a lot safer than they are doing today.
:-D
:-D

What you just desribed is a TOTALITARIAN government. Police conducting thier business, don't just 'conduct' thier own business.

Then who watches the police when they are strong enough to do your plan?

[adeptus_mechanicus]

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote:

Are you really serious? Unarmed law enforcement officers going up against an armed suspect is a death warrent for the law enforcement officers. Unarmed law enforcement officers may work in parts of europe but over here it woudl be a death warrent. Try sending unarmed officers into south central LA or the south Texas border. Not a good idea.

I am very serious indeed the large majority of our police force is unarmed and they want it to stay that way. A quick look at the number of murders of law enforcement officers in America reassures them that they've got it right.
After five to ten years of strict gun control laws, your police force should be able to conduct their business unarmed and a lot safer than they are doing today.
:-D
:-D

once again, we hear the "take away guns and people stop being violent" routine. Your police force will remain unarmed until it starts facing armed suspects, as they do in not just in the US (you would have us believe that only Americans are violent, im sure) but in many, many other parts of the world as well. In our nation's capitol, Washington DC, all firearms are prohibited. Guess what city has the highest murder rate with all weapons? You get three guesses...

And as far as the op for this thread is concerned, do you honestly believe that posting an article about a psycho with a gun will make us think guns should not be owned or used? Well, the next time someone runs down a bunch of kids with their car, I'll be sure to protest the ownership and usage of motor vehicles.

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote:

Just how do you suggest getting the guns that are already here off the street? Even if you stop manufacturing and importing guns you are still left will millions of guns in the US, many of which are illegal now. You can't excatly ask the criminals to turn them in and expect them to do it. I really don't see unarmed police ever working in this county.

I have a question, your police are unarmed, is that all police or just most of them? What happens when something like the South Carolina Courthouse shooting happens? If your police are unarmed and a person manages to get their hands on an "automatic" weapon, who stops him and how long does it take? How many people has he killed while the police are looking for a gun themselves?

We are past the suggestion stage TNBiologist, here in Britain criminals are using toy guns, air guns, replica guns, anything but what they cannot get shotguns.
Not only shotguns need to be imported for criminals to use them in the UK but they are paying a heavy price to get them and a heavier price if they are arrested with one.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner in London said that 90% of the Met is unarmed and he wants to keep it that way. In the last poll of police officers 79% want to remain unarmed for their own safety.

Have you got any idea of how safe London is TNBiologist?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Jefferson wrote:

What you just desribed is a TOTALITARIAN government. Police conducting thier business, don't just 'conduct' thier own business.

Then who watches the police when they are strong enough to do your plan?

Unarmed police = Totalitarian government ?!?!?!

Wake up Jefferson:





:-D
:-D