Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Devil505 said:

I was a DEA Special Agent & graduated from Basic Agent class # 4 in May, 1974. If the Debate Politics administration wants verification of this they can contact me & I would be happy to provide proof & or DP can contact DEA itself Drug Enforcement Administration Home. ( I will be happy to contact DEA & authorize release of my info to DP Forum admin) If you want proof, go through the DP forum admin...End of discussion.

Click to expand...

The first (BA-1) was in November of 1973. They were running 3 classes of 53 students every 10 weeks. So to be in (BA-4) according to your statement is possible and does sound credible.

They were indeed also "special agents."

Anyone can get this information here...

DEA History Book, 1970 - 1975

I don't think he would have made this up, and it jives with the web site 100%.

Blackdog said:

The first (BA-1) was in November of 1973. They were running 3 classes of 53 students every 10 weeks. So to be in (BA-4) according to your statement is possible and does sound credible.

They were indeed also "special agents."

Anyone can get this information here...

DEA History Book, 1970 - 1975

I don't think he would have made this up, and it jives with the web site 100%.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'd say that pretty much settles that.

I think I owe a certain Devil an apology.

Goshin said:

Thanks, I'd say that pretty much settles that.

I think I owe a certain Devil an apology.

Click to expand...

Don't feel bad, so do I, for the not being an LEO anyway.

I officially apologies to Devil for doubting his being an LEO.

Goshin said:

If a Mod/Admin I trust wants to check my bonafides, I'm fine with that. Otherhandwise, I'm not giving out personal info on DP's forums, since I still live in the same county I LEO'ed in. Given how hysterical some posters get on here, I don't care to be that easily located.

Click to expand...

Then you & I are in complete agreement. Any DP Mod/Admin I'll be happy to show them whatever they need to prove my bonafides. Just PM me.

Beyond that, anyone here can believe what they choose.

Blackdog said:

Don't feel bad, so do I, for the not being an LEO anyway.

I officially apologies to Devil for doubting his being an LEO.

Click to expand...

I accept your apology & have taken you off ignore.
You & I will probably never agree on much but it does take integrity to admit when you are wrong & I thank you for that.

Goshin said:

Good enough for me, thank you.


I've been trying to account for the differences in our perceptions about certain things; criminals and criminality most especially.

I suppose the fact that you were a Fed and I was County, you're liberal and I'm more-or-less conservative is probably explanation enough. Our experiences would have been very different I expect.

Click to expand...

I have wondered about our different perspectives myself & meant to ask you what exactly was your LE job?
While all my career was at the federal level, we worked quite closely with state & locals & even had them detailed to our office (for months at a time) in what we called "Task Forces."

Without giving away any trade secrets, we (DEA) needed that state & locals since they had most of the informants (CI's) & they needed us because we had the money/cash to make large buys & for "Flash Rolls." :lol:

Locals would get the ball rolling & then we would usually take over moving up the food chain.

Korimyr the Rat said:

. People who own guns and use guns don't normally support laws that will deprive them of their guns.

Click to expand...

I missed this earlier & would disagree with what I think you're saying.

Most LEO's (that I know) favor reasonable gun laws & want fewer guns on the street. We are the ones that have to face these weapons every day & it's not a hypothetical, college debate discussion to us.......It's the difference between going home after work or going to a city morgue!

Example:
I don't know of any LEO who sees a legitimate purpose for full auto weapons in the hands of civilians. What societal benefit could they possibly serve vs the danger they represent to us all, in the wrong hands?

Devil505 said:

I missed this earlier & would disagree with you here:

Most LEO's (that I know) favor reasonable gun laws & want fewer guns on the street. We are the ones that have to face these weapons every day & it's not a hypothetical, college debate discussion to us.......It's the difference between going home after work or going to a city morgue!

Click to expand...

:shrug: Most of the LEOs I knew were skeptical of gun control laws and generally did not favor them. Of course, we're talking about down South here.

G.

Devil505 said:

Example:
I don't know of any LEO who sees a legitimate purpose for full auto weapons in the hands of civilians. What societal benefit could they possibly serve vs the danger they represent to us all, in the wrong hands?

Click to expand...

Well, now you know one who doesn't agree with that statement. :mrgreen:

Goshin said:

:shrug: Most of the LEOs I knew were skeptical of gun control laws and generally did not favor them. Of course, we're talking about down South here.

G.

Click to expand...

Well that explains it! (you obviously only knew the stupid...southern LEO's!!):lol::lol:

(Just kidding!!)

Goshin said:

Well, now you know one who doesn't agree with that statement. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Be honest now....When you were a LEO.....you supported the idea of full auto weapons being readily available that you may have to face one day? (think about it for a minute)

Did you ever see the films of the North Hollywood bad guys armed with AK-47's & full body armor?

Devil505 said:

Be honest now....When you were a LEO.....you supported the idea of full auto weapons being readily available that you may have to face one day? (think about it for a minute)

Did you ever see the films of the North Hollywood bad guys armed with AK-47's & full body armor?

Click to expand...

Well I can honestly say no. I was an urban street cop and we had a pretty sizable gang problem. Unfortunately for them they were pretty stupid.

So in my case I can honestly say I never wanted to punish the majority for the actions of a tiny minority.

Blackdog said:

Well I can honestly say no. I was an urban street cop and we had a pretty sizable gang problem. Unfortunately for them they were pretty stupid.

So in my case I can honestly say I never wanted to punish the majority for the actions of a tiny minority.

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow??......You would or would not favor full auto weapons being available to civilians?

The South is a different culture.

It is a hunting and fishing and outdoor culture, a more rural and suburban than urban culture, and a place where self-reliance and community still mean a lot.

Most of us grow up with firearms as a simple fact of life. They are used for sport, to obtain food, and in self-defense. In many rural areas, you can call 911 and wait for a long time for a Deputy to arrive... one reason people tend to rely on themselves for protection.

We don't see guns as a tool of law enforcement and a weapon of criminals. We see them as tools, much like a chainsaw or a tractor. They are useful for various purposes, but just like the other tools named can be dangerous if misused. Responsibility with these items was imbedded in me at a young age, as it is many children hereabouts.

I started shooting at age 5. I started my son at age 4. I was hunting before I turned 12, had my first revolver at 15.

This is nothing unusual around here, and yet our murder rates are lower than cities with draconian gun control like DC and Chicago.

I've studied the matter extensively, and see no evidence to link gun control with a reduction in crime. Given that "to keep and bear arms" is a Constitutional right, I'd want to see compelling evidence that any given gun law was really going to make a difference in crime, before I could possibly support it.

NICS is acceptible, I suppose, since it sometimes keeps criminals from making purchases from legal gun dealers. The follow-up on those cases sucks though, it isn't being made full use of. Waiting periods are nonsense, and any other form of gun control that doesn't specifically target criminals is a waste and an infringement.

Just as in the Founder's day, citizens were armed with the same weapons as the Regulars, so I maintain the same rights apply to modern American citizens.

Devil505 said:

Not sure I follow??......You would or would not favor full auto weapons being available to civilians?

Click to expand...

Yes I would, I have no problem with it.

Criminals get full auto weapons legal or not. If they can't get them they take a semi-auto and convert it. All the gun laws do is make it harder for the average citizen to get the weapons.

I live in Florida, and they are legal here anyway as well as silencers. Don't here of any full auto shoot outs with the police.

I don't want to blow my own horn or anything, but I think it is worth making the point: when I was a cop, I didn't fear the thug's weapon. Don't care if it was a .22 pistol or a .308 FN. It is the man behind the weapon that is, or isn't, dangerous.

Most of them, come down to it, can't shoot for **** and often aren't all that brave either, unless they're high on something. If they're high they shoot even worse.

If they are actual "pro's" then they're going to have whatever weapons they want anyway, regardless of laws. We're aren't any better at keeping full-auto weapons out of the hands of drug dealers than we are at keeping drugs out of the hands of drug dealers.

OK...Then I guess I have to chalk it up to regional differences then. I have lived my whole life in the north & my government assignments were mainly in the north too.
I see no societal benefit that would overcome the inherent dangers for any civilian to own/operate any fully automatic weapon.
The more of those type weapons that are out there...the better chance they will end up in the wrong hands. (the law abiding citizen's crazy nephew who hates everyone & wants to die!)

Long day & off to bed I go......:2wave:

Devil505 said:

OK...Then I guess I have to chalk it up to regional differences then. I have lived my whole life in the north & my government assignments were mainly in the north too.

Click to expand...

I was a police officer in the Chicago land Area. I grew up on the South side of Chicago. I do not agree it is a regional thing. It is a political thing as far as I can tell.

Devil505 said:

I see no societal benefit that would overcome the inherent dangers for any civilian to own/operate any fully automatic weapon.

Click to expand...

It is not about societal benefits. It is about our freedom to bear arms and how it should not be infringed upon.

Devil505 said:

The more of those type weapons that are out there...the better chance they will end up in the wrong hands. (the law abiding citizen's crazy nephew who hates everyone & wants to die!)

Click to expand...

Again I say I will not punish the majority for the actions of a criminal few.

"The following states allow private ownership of machine guns if registered with ATF: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI, WY." - In which US states are automatic weapons illegal? - Yahoo! Answers

39 states allow private citizens to own fully automatic weapons. If you look at the crime statistics you will see that your assumption is wrong.

All the statistics are here:

"In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:

Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.

A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.

16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns." - GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns

Devil505 said:

Did you ever see the films of the North Hollywood bad guys armed with AK-47's & full body armor?

Click to expand...

Yea, they managed to kill a whopping zero people!

Ethereal said:

Yea, they managed to kill a whopping zero people!

Click to expand...

They tried REAL HARD & severely wounded many including cops who they outgunned at the time.
What a silly argument....Are you saying these guys didn't present a lethal danger to the city for quite a while? Ever had a gun pointed at you?

Luckily, the NFA (1934) puts stringent restrictions on the private ownership of full auto weapons, including: "Anyone acquiring a machine gun must, as part of the registration process, pass an extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation."

This make them rare, which is why crazies (like the Columbine killers) didn't have access to them.



SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS

Devil505 said:

Luckily, the NFA (1934) puts stringent restrictions on the private ownership of full auto weapons, including: "Anyone acquiring a machine gun must, as part of the registration process, pass an extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation."

Click to expand...

(In his best Morpheus voice) So you think this stops or deters criminals?

Devil505 said:

This make them rare, which is why crazies (like the Columbine killers) didn't have access to them.

Click to expand...

The shotguns they carried were as effective or more in close quarters combat (which Columbine represented) than any spray and pray full auto.

http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

Blackdog said:

(In his best Morpheus voice) So you think this stops or deters criminals?

Click to expand...

(in his best Dr. Spock voice) No...but it makes them very rare....... so crazies can't get them easily.

Blackdog said:

The shotguns they carried were as effective or more in close quarters combat (which Columbine represented) than any spray and pray full auto.

http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

Click to expand...

While shotguns are lethal, a suicidal nut can't spray large groups of people with a shotgun as easily as he could with a machine gun. (which is the very reason for including them in the NFA, & not the shotgun)

Devil505 said:

(in his best Dr. Spock voice) No...but it makes them very rare....... so crazies can't get them easily.

Click to expand...

Crazes can't get any gun legally.

As I already posted 39 states make it legal and yet no difference in criminal gun statistics, hmmm?

Devil505 said:

While shotguns are lethal, a suicidal nut can't spray large groups of people with a shotgun as easily as he could with a machine gun.

Click to expand...

Reality and physics disagree.

With 00 buck and a semi auto shot gun I can put more lead in the air faster than most modern military machine guns with a wider spread...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isN5hvO4Y7Y"]YouTube - Police shotgun speed shooting[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5uHt4AwYb4&feature=related"]YouTube - Benelli Shotgun Amazing Shots[/ame]