Gun Control

[SB Shock]

Each place you see the word "gun", it only seems fair to add "thoroughly screened and trained prior to possessing a" in front of it.

You have been reading the news right lately about the secret service?

Secret Service agent loses gun at girl friends?

Married Secret Service agent on Michelle Obama detail was caught trying to seduce a staffer instead of protecting the first lady?

The big fiasco down in Columbia where the presidential detail was caught throwing parties and bring in prostitutes? 10-15 agents implicated.

The DHS representative tasked with investigating the Columbia fiasco was forced to resign after caught circulating pictures of a interns feet and getting caught by Florida police in brothel?

Scandal with secret service agents passing around background checks of congressman?

Secret service unable to defend against fence jumper fiasco?

Secret service supervisor charged with sexual assault on subordinate?

Secret service agents charge with drunk driving at the whitehouse after they crashed into a barrier?

Now there is a story of ATF agent shows up at guys house and about to kick in the door in small town in Kansas, because he had a tip that a guy (who is actually the Chief of Police of the town) had a illegal silencer and was shooting at kids in the park. Come to find out a guy he had arrested for pointing a gun at his neighbor had sent a note to the ATF. Instead of the ATF calling the local police and seeing if there was any truth, the ATF agent decided to drove 2 hours to find these illegal silencers on his own

Thoroughly screened..... I feel much safer.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Or maybe there is a deeper intellectual point that you have missed? The 2nd amendment is at least partially there to protect us from being taken over by a tyranical government. For example, a government run by a leader that would completely ban guns in 2 seconds flat, if given the opportunity, but wouldn't give up government's right to carry under any circumstance.

Kung Wu,

I agree that Obama would love to go much further toward full confiscation (maybe not 100%, but significantly higher than 0%) if he had the power to do so. I also agree that the slippery slope argument is relevant here as changes today could lead to greater changes tomorrow.

I didn't miss anything about gun confiscation. I'm fully aware of the topic. It's just not what we were talking about here. Thankfully, Obama doesn’t have that power today, and full confiscation is a fairly separate issue from what was being discussed here. The topic I brought up by starting this thread, which the majority of the responses were also about, and which is a major policy discussion being debated in Washington today (not just in Obama’s “I wish I could do such-and-such” dreams), is the topic of background checks and the concept of screening potential gun owners before they are allowed to own a gun. It was in that context that the meme was posted. As I said before, I’m fine with people making lighthearted jokes, but in the context of discussing the pros and cons of forced screenings prior to all gun purchases, I stand by my comments that the meme was not a fair attack on what we were discussing.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You have been reading the news right lately about the secret service?

Secret Service agent loses gun at girl friends?

Married Secret Service agent on Michelle Obama detail was caught trying to seduce a staffer instead of protecting the first lady?

The big fiasco down in Columbia where the presidential detail was caught throwing parties and bring in prostitutes? 10-15 agents implicated.

The DHS representative tasked with investigating the Columbia fiasco was forced to resign after caught circulating pictures of a interns feet and getting caught by Florida police in brothel?

Scandal with secret service agents passing around background checks of congressman?

Secret service unable to defend against fence jumper fiasco?

Secret service supervisor charged with sexual assault on subordinate?

Secret service agents charge with drunk driving at the whitehouse after they crashed into a barrier?

Now there is a story of ATF agent shows up at guys house and about to kick in the door in small town in Kansas, because he had a tip that a guy (who is actually the Chief of Police of the town) had a illegal silencer and was shooting at kids in the park. Come to find out a guy he had arrested for pointing a gun at his neighbor had sent a note to the ATF. Instead of the ATF calling the local police and seeing if there was any truth, the ATF agent decided to drove 2 hours to find these illegal silencers on his own

Thoroughly screened..... I feel much safer.

SB Shock, would you prefer that the secret service be neither screened nor trained?

I fully admit that the screening/training process has been flawed. I'm very disappointed in the secret service's actions recently as I would expect them to meet a much higher standard than they have.

However, the average member of the secret service is still better at his job than the average U.S. citizen would be if picked at random (no screening) to do the job (without training). While complaining that the screening/training process hasn't produced the lofty results we would expect, I still acknowledge that the screening and training procedures they currently have in place are much better than nothing. I think we can simultaneously demand the process be improved (it definitely needs improvement) while simultaneously believing that the need for screening and training exists and is essential.

[Kung Wu]

Kung Wu,

I agree that Obama would love to go much further toward full confiscation (maybe not 100%, but significantly higher than 0%) if he had the power to do so. I also agree that the slippery slope argument is relevant here as changes today could lead to greater changes tomorrow.

I didn't miss anything about gun confiscation. I'm fully aware of the topic. It's just not what we were talking about here. Thankfully, Obama doesn’t have that power today, and full confiscation is a fairly separate issue from what was being discussed here. The topic I brought up by starting this thread, which the majority of the responses were also about, and which is a major policy discussion being debated in Washington today (not just in Obama’s “I wish I could do such-and-such” dreams), is the topic of background checks and the concept of screening potential gun owners before they are allowed to own a gun. It was in that context that the meme was posted. As I said before, I’m fine with people making lighthearted jokes, but in the context of discussing the pros and cons of forced screenings prior to all gun purchases, I stand by my comments that the meme was not a fair attack on what we were discussing.

Bro, this thread has been on a tangential topic from your post(s) practically as soon as you clicked the Submit button.

The deeper point is not about confiscation. The deeper point is that the second amendment protects us from a government that would strip us from our weapons in the name of safety, all the while arming themselves to the teeth. It goes back to @RoyalShock:'s post that with freedom comes risk and responsibility.

And @WstateU: didn't have to be responding to YOU for his post to be relevant to this thread.

[SB Shock]

SB Shock, would you prefer that the secret service be neither screened nor trained?

I would prefer they actually be competent. Evidently the only thing they are being screen for is STD, and looks like the only training they are getting - Work Place Sexual Harassment Training.

I fully admit that the screening/training process has been flawed. I'm very disappointed in the secret service's actions recently as I would expect them to meet a much higher standard than they have.

Don't we all. I can remember a time they were held in high regard and were looked up to, not mocked.

However, the average member of the secret service is still better at his job than the average U.S. citizen would be if picked at random (no screening) to do the job (without training).

I assume you are talking about guns. And I disagree. There is Screening. Law requires anybody who buys a gun from FFL to have a background check and be screened. The only way around this is of course a private seller. But is a felony for private seller to sell or give a gun to somebody who is not legally able to purchase and own a gun.

Although there is no requirement for formal weapons training, the evidence out there is the private owner do go out and train at the range and get organized training. NRA licensed instructors train on average 800,000 gun owner a year. If you go to the website of Gander Mountain, Thunderbird, Bullseye or Bulletstop you will see the training offerings from the basic to advance.

Then you have another subset of individuals who are gun owner and who are hunters. In at least in Kansas you have to attend hunter safety course. Then there are former military who are gun owner and have been trained in most likely several different weapons platforms. And finally you have Law Enforcement who are gun owners. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be information of detailed demographics.

Meanwhile, if you look up the statistics from the FBI studies - the police probably don't spend enough time in training. It was either the Miami or FBI study that found that only 15% of the rounds fired by law enforcement actually found their mark. The average engagement range is 7-9 feet. So maybe the police (unless specialized in like SWAT) don't actually get as much training as you might think.

[MoValley John]

I, well, I, umm, I don't want to derail this thread, but just to make one thing clear, we limited out again, it was wild. Walking was more difficult as we were in native grass and grasslands, but still filled the bag with an hour to spare.

My legs are tired. Really sore. Tomorrow, back to easier hunting in feed plots. We will then rest overnight and head home on Thursday. Good times!

[MoValley John]

My buddy from KC offered me world series tix if Iwasn't hunting. I didn't believe him and passed. This is what he texted me today. If the series goes back to KC, Im going to the games!
IMG_04531.jpg

[MoValley John]

IMG_04541.jpg

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Law requires anybody who buys a gun from FFL to have a background check and be screened. The only way around this is of course a private seller. But is a felony for private seller to sell or give a gun to somebody who is not legally able to purchase and own a gun.

Secret Service are REQUIRED to be screened, EVERY time. No exceptions.

John Doe citizen can easily buy a personal gun WITHOUT being screened. Illegal or not, there is no enforcement mechanism in place currently to stop this assuming John Doe knows the law and makes even the slightest effort to take advantage of it.

That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

Have you even been reading my posts?

[MoValley John]

20151027_110637.jpg

[MoValley John]

20151028_081653.jpg

[SB Shock]

Secret Service are REQUIRED to be screened, EVERY time. No exceptions.

John Doe citizen can easily buy a personal gun WITHOUT being screened. Illegal or not, there is no enforcement mechanism in place currently to stop this assuming John Doe knows the law and makes even the slightest effort to take advantage of it.

That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

Have you even been reading my posts?

So your argument is criminals can get guns if they want.....no duh. What is your solution beside gun grabbing?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Nowhere have I advocated for "gun grabbling", and as I've already stated a couple times in this thread, I'd like to hear reasons against background checks for all gun sales. Why allow a "loophole"?

By the way, I don't want to hear that this won't solve the whole problem. Of course it won't 100% solve anything, but surely it would be beneficial to some extent. Why not do this?

[SB Shock]

just to understand when you say "loophole" you mean you don't want to allow private seller transactions without universal background checks? Is that correct?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

just to understand when you say "loophole" you mean you don't want to allow private seller transactions without universal background checks? Is that correct?

Yes, that is what I’m referring to. No, I’m not 100% committed to supporting universal background checks. I’m just trying to hear the arguments against and haven’t been having much luck getting anyone to address it specifically.

Feel free to read the very first post of this thread for more detail.