• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Guns? Who has guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
1,015
I think you are putting words in their mouths as I haven't seen that language from any of them.
Yeah, not sure why he would think anyone would want criminals to have guns, nor have I read that statement from anyone, LOL.

What I do think happens is the twist and turn that is a common practice with zztop sends him into a alternate reality thinking pattern..
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,908
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
I think you are putting words in their mouths as I haven't seen that language from any of them.
Not in so many words. I don't think anyone here would come out and say it directly. But when the argument comes up that some means of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is needed, and the response is that there is an inalienable right for everyone to own a gun, and one poster even said that felons have a right to defend themselves, what other conclusions can you come up with?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,908
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Yeah, not sure why he would think anyone would want criminals to have guns, nor have I read that statement from anyone, LOL.
You tend to be a literalist, and you fail to understand the consequences of certain actions. If you fight the notion that there are some people who have no business being anywhere near guns, then the natural result of that is people with no business having guns, end up having guns.

If this is not the intention, then why dig in with constitutional arguments about gun rights? For the sake of this argument, and the specific point I'm making, there is no threat to YOUR right to own whatever you want. Nowhere have I ever stated that.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
7,538
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
I don't think anyone here is advocating letting criminals have access to guns. With that said, I am not a criminal. Try to take my guns (if I even have one) and "I'll shoot you in the face with a tank. Blaaa!" A quote from a good friend of mine, now SK.
prcguy
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
184
That does not fit the basic premise of an inalienable individual right. The difference in opinion often boils down to that. The question then is, "Do you recognize the right to keep and bear arms as an inalienable individual right?"
So, let's apply some common sense here.

Do you feel it is reasonable to allow:
1. A 3-year old child to possess a loaded gun, unsupervised?
2, A 5-year old child to possess a loaded gun, unsupervised?
3. A 7-year old child to possess a loaded gun, unsupervised?
4. A person who has been determined to be mentally ill to possess a gun?
5. A defendant on trial for murder to possess a gun in the courtroom?
6. A person who is in prison to possess a gun?

Do you think that is what the framers of the U. S. Constitution had in mind when the wrote the 2nd Amendment?

Jim41
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,300
Location
Henrico County, VA
Apples and oranges. Bearing Arms is a right. Operating a vehicle is a privilege.

Ok, as is operating on the amateur radio frequencies. I get that.

So, what about weapons other than handguns and rifles (I include semi-auto in this)? One of the posters here in this discussion is suggesting that, as the Founders intended, an armed militia is partly intended to defend against government tyranny. In light of that, should average citizens also be allowed to own machine guns, grenades, cannon, fighter jets, etc? After all, if the gummint decided to turn on the citizens, handguns and rifles would be no match for their arsenal!

I may sound as if I’m just trying to be a smart aleck here, but there are people, including amongst us Radio Ref Tavern folks, that seem to think that what the Founders had in mind for their era should also apply to our situation today.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
1,223
Location
127.0.0.1
Ok, as is operating on the amateur radio frequencies. I get that.

So, what about weapons other than handguns and rifles (I include semi-auto in this)? One of the posters here in this discussion is suggesting that, as the Founders intended, an armed militia is partly intended to defend against government tyranny. In light of that, should average citizens also be allowed to own machine guns, grenades, cannon, fighter jets, etc? After all, if the gummint decided to turn on the citizens, handguns and rifles would be no match for their arsenal!

I may sound as if I’m just trying to be a smart aleck here, but there are people, including amongst us Radio Ref Tavern folks, that seem to think that what the Founders had in mind for their era should also apply to our situation today.
In short, yes. I, an average citizen, own several machine guns, as is my RIGHT. The Founders intended that weapons available to a military should also be available to a militia. The fact that some weapons (even a machine gun is tens of thousands of dollars) are out or reach of the common man is not part of their thinking. Even fine flintlocks of the era were quite expensive comparatively.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,300
Location
Henrico County, VA
In short, yes. I, an average citizen, own several machine guns, as is my RIGHT. The Founders intended that weapons available to a military should also be available to a militia. The fact that some weapons (even a machine gun is tens of thousands of dollars) are out or reach of the common man is not part of their thinking. Even fine flintlocks of the era were quite expensive comparatively.

Even tanks, bazookas, landmines? Fighter jets? Warships?

Something doesn’t seem right here.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,908
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
I don't think anyone here is advocating letting criminals have access to guns.
Here is an example of a poster essentially advocating that criminals should be able to own guns:

If the person is not in lawful, legitimate custody of another, then they have a right to self defense.

The recourse is for the other people to be armed as well if they wish. Everyone not in lawful, legitimate custody is responsible for themselves. It's known as personal responsibility.
In this case, he's essentially stating that a convicted felon out on parole should have access to guns. After all, he would no longer be in lawful legal custody.

Here is another:

If you're a mental health patient that has tendencies of violent outbursts or are inclined towards homicidal tendencies, that person needs to be confined to a mental facility. Otherwise they are protected by the same rights the rest of us are.
At least in this case, he acknowledges that mental issues should be considered, but he avoids criminal issues. But he is clearly excluding criminals. Not all criminals are mental cases, btw.

Here's another one that is a strong advocate of allowing anyone to have unrestricted access to ammo, and by extension, guns.

If I had MY way, ammo would be right next to gum and candy bars at EVERY store checkout!
After these examples, can you still tell me that no one here is advocating that criminals have a right to carry? With every one of these posts, that is the implication and the end result, even if it's not explicitly stated.

With that said, I am not a criminal. Try to take my guns (if I even have one) and "I'll shoot you in the face with a tank. Blaaa!" A quote from a good friend of mine, now SK.
And I would defend YOUR right to do that, to the death.

Somewhere, there needs to be a rational middle ground.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
896
So, let's apply some common sense here.

Do you feel it is reasonable to allow:
1. A 3-year old child to possess a loaded gun, unsupervised?
2, A 5-year old child to possess a loaded gun, unsupervised?
3. A 7-year old child to possess a loaded gun, unsupervised?
4. A person who has been determined to be mentally ill to possess a gun?
5. A defendant on trial for murder to possess a gun in the courtroom?
6. A person who is in prison to possess a gun?

Do you think that is what the framers of the U. S. Constitution had in mind when the wrote the 2nd Amendment?

Jim41
Ah, the cavalry. I was wondering when they would show up. :)

Asked and answered: https://forums.radioreference.com/2877029-post206.html
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
896
In this case, he's essentially stating that a convicted felon out on parole should have access to guns. After all, he would no longer be in lawful legal custody.
You are putting words in people's mouths again. Parole is a form of custody. If someone is a criminal then shouldn't they be incarcerated under our system?
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
1,015
Here is an example of a poster essentially advocating that criminals should be able to own guns:



In this case, he's essentially stating that a convicted felon out on parole should have access to guns. After all, he would no longer be in lawful legal custody.

Here is another:



At least in this case, he acknowledges that mental issues should be considered, but he avoids criminal issues. But he is clearly excluding criminals. Not all criminals are mental cases, btw.

Here's another one that is a strong advocate of allowing anyone to have unrestricted access to ammo, and by extension, guns.



After these examples, can you still tell me that no one here is advocating that criminals have a right to carry? With every one of these posts, that is the implication and the end result, even if it's not explicitly stated.



And I would defend YOUR right to do that, to the death.

Somewhere, there needs to be a rational middle ground.

Huh? What?

NOBODY is stating that they want criminals to have free access to guns. You are taking snip bits and completely taking them out of context, then asserting your "opinion" on what was said, which in your case is completely false.

Then you generalize that everyone here advocates for the right of criminals to have access to guns, as if it was the point of the thread.

We get that you're for the second amendment, that's wonderful and I am glad to hear that. Just don't put words into peoples mouths, because that's exactly what is going on here.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,908
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
You are putting words in people's mouths again. Parole is a form of custody. If someone is a criminal then shouldn't they be incarcerated under our system?

In a previous post, you said "If the person is not in lawful, legitimate custody of another, then they have a right to self defense."

There are tens of thousands of convicted violent felons that are no longer in custody. Your previous comments can be taken to mean that they have a right to be armed.

Your previous comments leave no room for interpretation of anything other than having an "inalienable right" to carry, unless they are in custody.

Are you now rolling that back?


With the recidivism rate being what it is, I'm not sure that letting them have guns is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,908
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Huh? What?

NOBODY is stating that they want criminals to have free access to guns. You are taking snip bits and completely taking them out of context, then asserting your "opinion" on what was said, which in your case is completely false.
I disagree. When I bring up criminals having guns, the response is that everyone has an inalienable right to carry. How the hell else is that supposed to be interpreted?
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
896
In a previous post, you said "If the person is not in lawful, legitimate custody of another, then they have a right to self defense."
Yes. That is exactly inline with my last post. "Parole is a form of custody. If someone is a criminal then shouldn't they be incarcerated under our system?"

You're still working that ol' snake-oil, Rules for Radicals. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top