• 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

The gun issue

kayn1n32008

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,492
Location
In the 'patch
This political cartoon is half-baked crap. It's like trying to imply Conservatives don't want to foster a self-respecting person from earning a decent wage being independent and fulfilling the American dream. Yet it uses an image of a mother who just gave birth to try and make some BS points. Those loud moths actually remind me of all the tweets toward Conservatives that they should have been aborted, shot, killed, etc.
Nice try. That cartoon describes republicans to a T.

Stop deluding your self into saying you are ‘staunch conservative’ because a ‘staunch conservative’ would not support trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
3,077
So the Republican position of arming teachers isn't Republican enough for you?

And I'm not a Republican. I'm a staunch Conservative. Just pointing that out.
More guns in schools is not a solution. The solution is getting guns out of the hands of the insane, drunks, wife beaters, criminals and extremists.

The 2A was written in support of a "well regulated militia". SCOTUS needs to be tasked to determine if that includes Billy Bob in the Basement.

The founding fathers lived in simpler times when they could easily determine if someone were unfit to be handling a weapon. I am sure the sheriff and his possee disarmed many insane, drunks, wife beaters, criminals and extremists of the day.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 

poltergeisty

Deep Thinker
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
3,806
Location
RLG, Fly heading 053, intercept 315 DVV
More guns in schools is not a solution. The solution is getting guns out of the hands of the insane, drunks, wife beaters, criminals and extremists.

So you're saying that teachers fit into this category? Did you not hear the news from Florida? You honestly think someone hell bent at shooting up a school is going to go to one where damn near every teacher is armed? I don't know about you, but that sounds like a losing strategy and I'd pick an easier target. Which is what will happen once all schools are armed. The solution is simple and we don't need political BS ideology to undermine common sense.

The 2A was written in support of a "well regulated militia". SCOTUS needs to be tasked to determine if that includes Billy Bob in the Basement.

It's more than that. What part of the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed do you not understand? The founding fathers created the 2nd amendment knowing full well that if one day the government becomes out of place, the people will have the ability to insure it's rectified. There are some two guns per some 330 million citizens in the U.S.. Not only that but in large part law enforcement is pro-2nd amendment and know that it is your first line of defense should you encounter a home invasion, etc.

The Constitutional right to own a firearm is not some small political half witted idea. It's bigger than you can understand. And if those people in Venezuela had their guns things might be diffrent today. I can guarantee you that. Mass mobs armed to the teeth is a force to reckon.


The founding fathers lived in simpler times when they could easily determine if someone were unfit to be handling a weapon. I am sure the sheriff and his possee disarmed many insane, drunks, wife beaters, criminals and extremists of the day.

Fast forward to around 1860 and the trek out West and rethink that.
 
Last edited:

poltergeisty

Deep Thinker
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
3,806
Location
RLG, Fly heading 053, intercept 315 DVV
The problem is not guns, it's a culture of corruption. There were simpler times. Now today it's a whole other animal with many fascists to contend with. Like inner city collapse thanks to in large part the people's leaders. It stems from the leaders. The policies they set fourth and how it shapes a psyche and culture of a city or country.

Trust me, there are around 5 million NRA members. If guns were a problem you'd know about it.
 

poltergeisty

Deep Thinker
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
3,806
Location
RLG, Fly heading 053, intercept 315 DVV
How do we get guns out of the hands of the "insane?" Everyone in my opinion is insane. Just walk down the street or into a store and realize this person is on this pill, this person is doing his secretary, this person is doing pot, meth, heroin, coke, etc. This person over here has a face full of metal. This person has more ink on themselves than a squad has ink. And at anytime these people can become angry or super depressed if not already, grab a gun and blow someone away.

So how do we fix this culture of corruption? This new messed up psyche of today unlike yesteryear of the 18th century? How do we teach morals, leadership, self-worth, etc?

Perhaps it starts with the leaders and our schools?

That in a nutshell is the crux to the "gun issue." The simple point and most used phrase used is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
3,077
How do we get guns out of the hands of the "insane?" Everyone in my opinion is insane. Just walk down the street or into a store and realize this person is on this pill, this person is doing his secretary, this person is doing pot, meth, heroin, coke, etc. This person over here has a face full of metal. This person has more ink on themselves than a squad has ink. And at anytime these people can become angry or super depressed if not already, grab a gun and blow someone away.

So how do we fix this culture of corruption? This new messed up psyche of today unlike yesteryear of the 18th century? How do we teach morals, leadership, self-worth, etc?

Perhaps it starts with the leaders and our schools?

That in a nutshell is the crux to the "gun issue." The simple point and most used phrase used is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
You have just made a good argument to disarm a large portion of the population.

Thank you for doing so, so eloquently.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
3,077
So you're saying that teachers fit into this category? Did you not hear the news from Florida? You honestly think someone hell bent at shooting up a school is going to go to one where damn near every teacher is armed? I don't know about you, but that sounds like a losing strategy and I'd pick an easier target. Which is what will happen once all schools are armed. The solution is simple and we don't need political BS ideology to undermine common sense.




It's more than that. What part of the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed do you not understand? The founding fathers created the 2nd amendment knowing full well that if one day the government becomes out of place, the people will have the ability to insure it's rectified. There are some two guns per some 330 million citizens in the U.S.. Not only that but in large part law enforcement is pro-2nd amendment and know that it is your first line of defense should you encounter a home invasion, etc.

The Constitutional right to own a firearm is not some small political half witted idea. It's bigger than you can understand. And if those people in Venezuela had their guns things might be diffrent today. I can guarantee you that. Mass mobs armed to the teeth is a force to reckon.





Fast forward to around 1860 and the trek out West and rethink that.
What part of "well regulated militia" do you not understand?

There are crazy people claiming to be "3 percenters", on one side, and crazy people calling themselves the john brown militia on the other side.

Apart from their arm patches they all look like the same dis-organised bunch of drunk Yahoo's you would see at a biker convention. Not well regulated by any means.

If TSHTF, or an EMP, or by directive of Herr Capitan von Trump, these IDIOTS will be out on the street shooting each other and themselves.

Arming teachers? Don't teachers have enough problems without worrying that little Bobbie, whacked out on ADHD meds won't grab her gun from her purse and shoot up the classroom?

This NRA argument that everyone needs to be a good guy with a gun, is simply a smokescreen. Nobody is buying it except some idiot politicians, who as usual are being bribed or blackmailed by the NRA.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 

Darkstar01

Was: N1RGR
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
33
Location
Warning Area W105
What part of "well regulated militia" do you not understand?
What part of "the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed upon" don't you not understand?

Apart from their arm patches they all look like the same dis-organised bunch of drunk Yahoo's you would see at a biker convention. Not well regulated by any means.
Are they violating the law? No, so then I would argue that they are in fact following federal regulations and also exercising their right to assemble.

Arming teachers? Don't teachers have enough problems without worrying that little Bobbie, whacked out on ADHD meds won't grab her gun from her purse and shoot up the classroom?
Well lets look at it this way, if a teacher could prevent one more child from being shot during a mass shooting event at a school before police arrive then isn't it all worth it? Besides the teacher wouldn't have the gun in her purse but rather have it locked up in a safe place that students would not have access to.

This NRA argument that everyone needs to be a good guy with a gun, is simply a smokescreen. Nobody is buying it except some idiot politicians, who as usual are being bribed or blackmailed by the NRA.
The problem is with the bad guys having guns not law abiding citizens. Take a look at Chicago.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
3,077
What part of "the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed upon" don't you not understand?



Are they violating the law? No, so then I would argue that they are in fact following federal regulations and also exercising their right to assemble.



Well lets look at it this way, if a teacher could prevent one more child from being shot during a mass shooting event at a school before police arrive then isn't it all worth it? Besides the teacher wouldn't have the gun in her purse but rather have it locked up in a safe place that students would not have access to.



The problem is with the bad guys having guns not law abiding citizens. Take a look at Chicago.

SCOTUS needs to visit the words "well regulated militia" . None of what we have today resembles that.

There are crazy people claiming to be "3 percenters", on one side, and crazy people calling themselves the john brown militia on the other side. , They may not be breaking a law, but they are far from a "well regulated militia" .

So on one hand you are going to give guns to teachers to be ready for an attack that could happen at a moments notice, and on the second, you are going to lock up the gun in a safe place. How will that work again? What if the teacher forgets to lock the safe, a kid takes the gun kills himself and or others. Is the teacher criminally liable? This is not a workable scenario. We don't allow guns inside airports and that is working just fine. I don't see many teachers adding gun training to their busy schedule. It would be more practical to double up on TRAINED school resource officers and communications systems.

Be honest you are Hoplophile
 

Token

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
2,029
Location
Mojave Desert, California, USA
The 2A was written in support of a "well regulated militia". SCOTUS needs to be tasked to determine if that includes Billy Bob in the Basement.



The founding fathers lived in simpler times when they could easily determine if someone were unfit to be handling a weapon. I am sure the sheriff and his possee disarmed many insane, drunks, wife beaters, criminals and extremists of the day.
The argument that 2A applies only to a militia, of any kind, is an interesting one and made much more difficult by our use of the term today as opposed to how it was viewed and understood at the time of authoring.


Thomas Jefferson himself said, in commenting on how the Constitution should be read, something like this (sorry, quoting from memory, so not word-for-word what he wrote) "On every question of Constitutional meaning let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recall the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying to make what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."


At the time "well regulated" meant "well functioning", and the militia of the day was sometimes impromptu, made up by the common man as needed to face the situation. What some people would view today as a collection of friends and bubbas of a like mind. Not always a formal militia / guard. This can be viewed as the difference of a general militia and a select militia.


James Madison himself said, on June 8, 1789, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." The "body of the people", the largest part of the people. Well trained in arms meant, at the time and as used, familiar with them, familiarity built by use / access / ownership of them.


The largest problem with attempting to tie 2A to what we would now call an organized militia / guard is the remainder of the text of 2A, "the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says "the right of the people", without caveat, and does not say "the right of the people who compose or might compose a militia" or anything along those lines.


In any other amendment or right a statement of "the right of the people shall not be infringed" would be defended, on its own and by all sides, as applying to everyone eligible.


Allowing the common man to maintain arms allows for support of whatever kind of militia is necessary, impromptu, organized, or other, to protect the national interest and public good. By allowing the common man arms you insure that no matter how disrupted the nation becomes a line of defense always exists to any attacking forces, external or internal, bent on dismantling the Republic. You also allow the common man to defend himself, his property, his people, and most importantly, his rights.


Some people get all wrapped up around the "shall not be infringed" and go over the top with "no restrictions any time". But, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, obviously there are limitations. But those limitations should very much be the exception, by far the minority. The mentally ill, people who have proven they do not want to play by societies laws or with regard to their fellow man, etc, should be limited, of course. But few others should be. And no, I don't think teachers should have guns in school, unless, of course, those teachers would normally carry them in public. Carry is not for everyone, and it is a personal decision that only they can make.


So yes, there should be "prohibited persons". Nice term, yes? I selected it on purpose, the category of prohibit persons already exist. The hard part is developing a system that enforces those prohibitions, without stomping on the rights of others. The following is my opinion, and not very popular with some gun owners, but it is what I think myself. Universal background checks is a good starting point, but only if not tied to registration, which may, potentially, be an infringement.


And then there is the entire issue of "sporting arms". Some people want to limit firearm ownership to "hunting" and "target" arms. I am sorry, but the constitution is not, in any way, about sporting applications of arms. It is about security, defense, and protection, and as such those kinds of arms, arms well suited to those applications, should be the most defended. Everything else is just gravy, because we are allowed to pursue happiness in relative security, security that we ourselves, as individuals, have a responsibility to defend. And, thanks to 2A, we retain some ability to defend in the event the government cannot.


Sorry, I don't often allow myself to get drawn into these kinds of discussions online. There are far to many trolls out there who's only goal is to incite, versus discuss. I am all for discussion, and just because I disagree with someone does not mean I think their position is without warrant or that they are not allowed to have it. But to too many people there is only argument, not discussion, and if my opinion is not the same as theirs then I am an idiot. To bad.

T!
 
Last edited:

Squad10

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
918
A Facebook post a minute later on Minneapolis Scanner page said that the three police departments were responding to “multiple [911] calls” about “10-12 Somali teen males armed with hammers chasing people,” also with “several injuries reported.” Both Facebook pages regularly post summaries of police scanner audio.
Somali teens, showing their gratitude to the nation that gave them refuge.
 
Top