LonewolfMcquade
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2022
- Messages
- 176
We soooooo need to bring back tar & feathers......& maybe the guillotine for the more stubborn
Tulsa Police Chief: Might be Time to Trade Some Freedom for Gun Control
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,222
No, they don't get to have anymore gun control period. All of it is already a violation.
when cops give up their “law enforcement safety act” privileges to carry firearms on- or off-duty, active or retired, anywhere in the usa, i will…not give up my inalienable, 2a-protected, rights.
our constitution isn’t for trade or sale. any sworn official who says otherwise is a traitor to his oath of office.
our constitution isn’t for trade or sale. any sworn official who says otherwise is a traitor to his oath of office.
C.R.
Member
Why would I think the cops would protect me , when none other than the supreme court has ruled that they do not have to?
N555
Member
There's gun grabbers who think gun laws actually work and when they get a stupid law passed it's enforced.
This shows them their efforts are futile, they pass a law, it goes on the books then goes unenforced at least 99% of the time.
Why not separate felons from guns?
Why are we letting go people out of prison if they are too dangerous to have a gun?
Why are at least 69,000 people who lie and are denied a gun on a 4473 just ignored?
The 4473 only stops a few people a year from getting a gun, if the feds are already watching a criminal, waiting for them to make a mistake and get lucky enough for that criminal to go and try to get a gun by lying on a 4473 then they grab them.
The other 69,700ish criminals just go buy a stolen gun or straw purchased gun.
theotherwaldo
Member
They shouldn't be allowed to even talk about more gun laws until they start either enforcing or removing the existing gun laws... .
N555
Member
If they put removal Hughes ammendment on the table yeah.
But no gun grabber even knows am what the Hughes ammendment is so what do they care if it goes away.
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,601
If you don’t actually think about the ins and outs of the question much, it sounds really good to advocate for the elitist “room with padded walls” fix. Just restrict everyone’s right to own guns and then we won’t have these dangerous things on our streets and everyone will be so much safer. Right?
“Of course,” our gun control advocate might admit. “Criminals will still rob but they won’t have guns so they won’t be able to commit so much murder” —wait, what??
A) plenty of people met violent ends before guns were a thing. If anything a gun protects the weak and vulnerable, because a young, muscular thug (most thugs aren’t 75 and wheelchair bound, look at the mugshots) can be stopped by a pull of the trigger.
B) “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” Gun restrictions criminalize the innocent and will do nothing to rein in the criminals for decades, if ever. Sure there are largely gun-free societies where violent crime is lower than here. But there are also plenty of societies where it’s worse, too.
I suspect the good lawman is merely echoing his party’s line. “Let’s turn the faucet down as much as we can on these dangerous things.” Which is really an admission that he, his department, and his party aren’t much good at actually restricting violent crime.
“Of course,” our gun control advocate might admit. “Criminals will still rob but they won’t have guns so they won’t be able to commit so much murder” —wait, what??
A) plenty of people met violent ends before guns were a thing. If anything a gun protects the weak and vulnerable, because a young, muscular thug (most thugs aren’t 75 and wheelchair bound, look at the mugshots) can be stopped by a pull of the trigger.
B) “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” Gun restrictions criminalize the innocent and will do nothing to rein in the criminals for decades, if ever. Sure there are largely gun-free societies where violent crime is lower than here. But there are also plenty of societies where it’s worse, too.
I suspect the good lawman is merely echoing his party’s line. “Let’s turn the faucet down as much as we can on these dangerous things.” Which is really an admission that he, his department, and his party aren’t much good at actually restricting violent crime.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,222
It's about governments quest to rule us and nothing else.
And citizens are allowing it to happen.
Riomouse911
Member
Here is a quote from a Russian newspaper editorial that was lifted from the Washington post:
“It became clear that a man with a gun, if he is not a state official, is a real threat to the state and statehood,” the newspaper’s editor, Konstantin Remchukov, wrote in an opinion column.
Moscow. Tulsa. Pyongyang. Sacramento. Caracas. New York.
Not a shred of difference in their beliefs that everyone be disarmed.
Stay safe.
“It became clear that a man with a gun, if he is not a state official, is a real threat to the state and statehood,” the newspaper’s editor, Konstantin Remchukov, wrote in an opinion column.
Moscow. Tulsa. Pyongyang. Sacramento. Caracas. New York.
Not a shred of difference in their beliefs that everyone be disarmed.
Stay safe.
teerex.otw
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2023
- Messages
- 256
Yes, some citizens are allowing it to happen (by their poor decisions, and lack of knowledge of history). But a lot of citizens are getting “steamrolled” by elected officials from other states over whom we have no control…this is frustrating and grossly unfair. Unfortunately there are no easy answers, and the solutions that do exist have precisely a snowball’s chance of becoming law.
after hunter biden’s firearms violations’ magic disappearing act anything uttered by anyone in law enforcement advocating yet more gun control is worthless. i’m uninterested in paying any police chief for his personal opinions on constitutional law. how about “shut up and dribble,” i.e. do your job or move on.
Remington1911
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,514
Andolini's has gone downhill--at least the one in Jenks. I live south of town, and don't go downtown unless I absolutely have to, and I make sure to carry. Two recent, senseless shootings, have convinced me to carry every time I leave the house. The last shooting was at a gas/convenience store just south of Tulsa (Bixby) that had a male shoot and kill his boyfriend. Not much followup on that story by the media.
Sig 365 or SW 640--don't leave home without it. And the TPD Chief Franklin needs to explore other department opportunities--and the Tulsa Mayor (who strikes me as a RINO being controlled by a Tulsa "benefactor" in the mold of Soros) needs to look for someone within the department to fix ongoing problem of crime in Tulsa. It was a nice, safe town NOT that many years ago.
Sig 365 or SW 640--don't leave home without it. And the TPD Chief Franklin needs to explore other department opportunities--and the Tulsa Mayor (who strikes me as a RINO being controlled by a Tulsa "benefactor" in the mold of Soros) needs to look for someone within the department to fix ongoing problem of crime in Tulsa. It was a nice, safe town NOT that many years ago.
Ignition Override
Member
Many will sell their souls (—-and yours-—) to get either re-elected or remain on “ the Good Side” of a city Mayor.
The US Constitution and citizens’ personal security are obstacles in so many peoples’ careers.
I once flew a 717 trip ( ATL base) with a First Officer from a Chicago suburb. No idea which area that was.
His older brother was an Asst. Police Chief in a Chicago Dept. who along with this FO believed that after we Totally Ban Private Gun Ownership, the overall supply available to criminals would Dry Up in fifty years.
That’s Literally what the guy told me. I didnt reward him with any response to his jerk comment/plan (I never respond to provocative comments) but that attitude must be extremely popular right now- and very seldom spoken…
The US Constitution and citizens’ personal security are obstacles in so many peoples’ careers.
I once flew a 717 trip ( ATL base) with a First Officer from a Chicago suburb. No idea which area that was.
His older brother was an Asst. Police Chief in a Chicago Dept. who along with this FO believed that after we Totally Ban Private Gun Ownership, the overall supply available to criminals would Dry Up in fifty years.
That’s Literally what the guy told me. I didnt reward him with any response to his jerk comment/plan (I never respond to provocative comments) but that attitude must be extremely popular right now- and very seldom spoken…
Last edited:
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,601
He might be right…. I think any halfway intellectual gun-grabber truly believes this and thinks it’s the “right choice” for “the greater good.”
But who will pay the price of being defenseless and at the mercy of criminals for the next 50 years? (Many, many law abiding, innocent civilians.) And who is being unfairly deprived of their natural and constitutionally protected rights in the name of some nebulous, humanitarian “reduction of gun violence?” (All law-abiding citizens.) And are there numerous less oppressive ways to accomplish the same thing? (Yes.) And how much “gun violence” actually affects those who are not themselves criminals? (Some, certainly, but I’d wager statistically not that much.)
Gun control is a feel-good panacea for politicians who don’t have the will to ask hard questions. And I don’t just mean zero tolerance policies for criminals or somesuch. Being tough on crime would help, but so would fixing some of the root socioeconomic problems that create a criminal underclass with nothing to lose. Nobody wants to seriously fix anything, they just want to pander to their base and keep fostering the us-vs-them mentality that gets them elected.
vito
Member
Many who favor gun control actually have the delusion that if guns were banned and effectively eliminated, violent crime would disappear. This is the fantasy in their minds that they never really dwell on or think through. If there were no firearms the young, tough and ruthless criminals would have a very easy time assaulting and robbing, or killing the innocents. Children, women, seniors, disabled persons, etc. all would be at the mercy of the unarmed criminal. Those in favor of gun control never seem to grasp that guns are the tools by which even the weakest and must vulnerable can offset the physical and psychological advantages of the criminal who might be armed with a knife, a club, or only his greater physical strength and the willingness to inflict harm upon others. At 80 years old, and with a host of physical limitations, I am not about to give up my gun and be forced to rely upon the mercy of my attacker.
the above statement by vito is so elementally true that anyone who disagrees is out of touch with reality or a criminal themselves. good people simply want to live a decent life in peace. bad people go out to to bad things to anyone weaker. god made man, and samuel colt made men equal.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,222
Again we can't give up our guns we need them to protect us from our Tyrannical Government. Anyone thinking otherwise is not very bright or wants government control of us. Gun control does not prevent evil people from committing crimes.
It's a fair suggestion. Not one I necessarily agree with.
He is entitled to his opinion and we should not be attacking him personally IMO. It is Ok to disagree with him, and to suggest why he might be wrong.
We already accept all kinds of restrictions on our rights beyond the second amendment without even thinking about it.
He is entitled to his opinion and we should not be attacking him personally IMO. It is Ok to disagree with him, and to suggest why he might be wrong.
We already accept all kinds of restrictions on our rights beyond the second amendment without even thinking about it.
Many people on the left think the police should give up their "weapons of war" in the name safety, so maybe he should get rid of departments high capacity assault weapons and lead by example. Once they prove this makes the city safer, others might follow, if so inclined.
AlexanderA
Member
We're having this discussion for the upteenth time. It's so tiresome.
Guns will never be removed in this country. Never. It's physically impossible, with so many guns already out there.
Laws to the contrary will simply be ignored.
Both sides need to come to terms with this.
Guns will never be removed in this country. Never. It's physically impossible, with so many guns already out there.
Laws to the contrary will simply be ignored.
Both sides need to come to terms with this.
luzyfuerza
Member
Mark Smith makes another point that I haven't seen presented here.
Mark notes that Scott Peterson was recently acquitted by a Florida jury of a criminal charge that, as SRO, he had a special duty to protect the children at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas HS, and failed to fulfill that duty.
SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect citizens in their communities. Surely Chief Franklin is aware of these rulings.
If they don't protect me, can I sue them? Or expect the DA to prosecute them criminally? Of course not. Chief Franklin claims that he is a subject matter expert in an activity that he has no obligation to perform.
If Scott Peterson, on-site when the Parkland shootings began, and a sworn officer specifically trained and assigned to protect the students and staff of MSD high school, has no duty to protect children from violent attack, then why should I trust that Chief Franklin, or anyone like him, or anyone who works for him, will step up and protect me from someone who threatens me with death or significant bodily harm?
Great discussion...and worth adding to the gun control debate.
Mark notes that Scott Peterson was recently acquitted by a Florida jury of a criminal charge that, as SRO, he had a special duty to protect the children at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas HS, and failed to fulfill that duty.
SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect citizens in their communities. Surely Chief Franklin is aware of these rulings.
If they don't protect me, can I sue them? Or expect the DA to prosecute them criminally? Of course not. Chief Franklin claims that he is a subject matter expert in an activity that he has no obligation to perform.
If Scott Peterson, on-site when the Parkland shootings began, and a sworn officer specifically trained and assigned to protect the students and staff of MSD high school, has no duty to protect children from violent attack, then why should I trust that Chief Franklin, or anyone like him, or anyone who works for him, will step up and protect me from someone who threatens me with death or significant bodily harm?
Great discussion...and worth adding to the gun control debate.
Last edited:
Ignition Override
Member
That chief should move to Canada. He doesn't believe in our US Constitution.
Get lost, Pal (coward)….
Get lost, Pal (coward)….
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
