[NastyFX4]

Black People Get out?

[NoColoradoGT]

I will start by saying that I am pro-2nd amendment rights. Everyone has the Consitutional right to bear arms, but I don't believe people need assault weapons. Nevetheless, everyone has the right (and they should have that right) to bear arms.

ALTHOUGH

From a legal standpoint, in this case, you are going to hear mention of two Supreme Court cases.

One regarding seizure - Terry v. Ohio. Going off of this case, the officers were within their legal rights to seize said firearms due to probable cause.

Secondly, a lowered definition of probable cause to investigate - Illinois v. Gates. This case established in 1983 that a "fair probability" or "substantial chance" was all that was needed for law enforcement involvement.

If someone gave a tip to police, as it seems to be the case, then officers did not technically act outside of legality. I'll be interested to see what happens here.

[06RedfireGT]

Originally Posted by NoColoradoGT I will start by saying that I am pro-2nd amendment rights. Everyone has the Consitutional right to bear arms, but I don't believe people need assault weapons. Nevetheless, everyone has the right (and they should have that right) to bear arms. ALTHOUGH From a legal standpoint, in this case, you are going to hear mention of two Supreme Court cases. One regarding seizure - Terry v. Ohio. Going off of this case, the officers were within their legal rights to seize said firearms due to probable cause. Secondly, a lowered definition of probable cause to investigate - Illinois v. Gates. This case established in 1983 that a "fair probability" or "substantial chance" was all that was needed for law enforcement involvement. If someone gave a tip to police, as it seems to be the case, then officers did not technically act outside of legality. I'll be interested to see what happens here.

You are you to decide what I, or anyone else needs?

First we don't need "assault weapons", then he don't need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, then we don't need semi automatics, then we don't need hollowpoint ammunition, and finally, we don't need guns at all!

See how that works? Who the hell gave anyone the authority to tell me what I "need"?

Also, on the topic of "assault weapons" which one of these would you classify as an "assault weapon"?

[schoff]

Just finished reading....bull shit. I'd be so freakin pissed.

[AzSonicSnake]

first off, i own 4 guns. and am all for gun rights. but after reading this, it really reminded me of the warehouse shootings not too long ago...

9 killed in shooting at Conn. beer distributorship - Yahoo! News

granted i think what went on in the case posted by the OP is way overboard, here is a situation similar where the disgruntled ex employee put those guns to use. just throwin it out there. as i am all for gun rights, and proudly own some myself. even built my last one.

[Till]

Originally Posted by 06RedfireGT You are you to decide what I, or anyone else needs? First we don't need "assault weapons", then he don't need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, then we don't need semi automatics, then we don't need hollowpoint ammunition, and finally, we don't need guns at all! See how that works? Who the hell gave anyone the authority to tell me what I "need"? Also, on the topic of "assault weapons" which one of these would you classify as an "assault weapon"?

neither

[futureMACH1racer]

Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber, when used for hunting, are generally used on small game rather than deer. A smaller caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles (see this hunting rifle ammunition chart).

Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)

There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock.

If assault weapons are so rarely used in crime, why all the bullshit when certain military-style-semi-automatic weapons were banned by the Crime Control Act of 1994? A Washington Post editorial (September 15, 1994) summed it up best:

"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control"

[06RedfireGT]

Originally Posted by Tiller neither

You and I share the same answer, but I am curious to hear what he has to say.

[MustanG_guy17]

Sure it isn't right. But what if he really was planning to go shoot some people? What about those people's family's? If he didn't want this to happen he shouldn't have created the situation to begin with. I have no problem with what I read. JMO He could have went and killed tons of innocent people and then we would be talking about how the heck could he have done that.

[AndrewA.]

Originally Posted by 06RedfireGT You and I share the same answer, but I am curious to hear what he has to say.

Why?? He just stated his opinion and you kinda are trying to start shit with him? Why not educated him on an assualt wepon like futureMACH1racer just did.

[NoColoradoGT]

It is not that I am some power to tell you whether you should or shouldn't. It is just simply my opinion, even as a gun owner and hunter, that people do not NEED assault weapons. I grew up in a big city and have seen the havoc that firearms like AK-47's can have in gang related drive by shootings in metropolis areas. I've seen what those weapons do to police officers as well, especially when you consider that the average police beat doesn't contain any assault weapons to retaliate. Anyone remember the Norco Bank Robbery Shootout in '80? Or the North Hollywood Standoff in '97? I'm not saying every assault weapon owner is like this. FutureMACH1Racer, thank you for that reply. I was aware of a good amount of that information, but picked up some knowledge as well, so thank you. The portion you mentioned regarding police officer deaths is what I'm interested in. I'm saying that situations like the North Hollywood Standoff could have ended faster and differently if police officers were better equipped, and if criminals did not have access to such rapid firepower. I don't want anyone to get me wrong! I own a .357 and a 9 mm. for home protection as well as a 12 gauge and Winchester Super Shadow for hunting, and then a couple pellet guns and air rifles for fun. I am very pro-second amendment. But the fact is, no one needs to have an AK in their home. No one needs an AR-15 to go hunting. Those weapons, again, IN MY OPINION, should be left to our military and our police. They have nothing to do with sheer firepower, its about the rapid firepower. No one NEEDS that, IN MY OPINION.

I'm not trying to start some ideological war here.

My point was to show that police officers in the case we were discussing, were probably within their legal rights based on two supreme court cases I referenced. There are a few more cases that touch on this topic as well, but those two are probably the most relevent (from my memory of my studies). I would venture to say we don't have the full story as well. The article was definitely objective, like so much of post-Hearst journalism.

[NoColoradoGT]

Originally Posted by MustanG_guy17 Sure it isn't right. But what if he really was planning to go shoot some people? What about those people's family's? If he didn't want this to happen he shouldn't have created the situation to begin with. I have no problem with what I read. JMO He could have went and killed tons of innocent people and then we would be talking about how the heck could he have done that.

+1 for making that point and further proving why the case rulings in Terry v. Ohio and Illinois v. Gates fell the way that they did.

[Whiskey11]

Originally Posted by NoColoradoGT It is not that I am some power to tell you whether you should or shouldn't. It is just simply my opinion, even as a gun owner and hunter, that people do not NEED assault weapons. I grew up in a big city and have seen the havoc that firearms like AK-47's can have in gang related drive by shootings in metropolis areas. I've seen what those weapons do to police officers as well, especially when you consider that the average police beat doesn't contain any assault weapons to retaliate. Anyone remember the Norco Bank Robbery Shootout in '80? Or the North Hollywood Standoff in '97? I'm not saying every assault weapon owner is like this. FutureMACH1Racer, thank you for that reply. I was aware of a good amount of that information, but picked up some knowledge as well, so thank you. The portion you mentioned regarding police officer deaths is what I'm interested in. I'm saying that situations like the North Hollywood Standoff could have ended faster and differently if police officers were better equipped, and if criminals did not have access to such rapid firepower. I don't want anyone to get me wrong! I own a .357 and a 9 mm. for home protection as well as a 12 gauge and Winchester Super Shadow for hunting, and then a couple pellet guns and air rifles for fun. I am very pro-second amendment. But the fact is, no one needs to have an AK in their home. No one needs an AR-15 to go hunting. Those weapons, again, IN MY OPINION, should be left to our military and our police. They have nothing to do with sheer firepower, its about the rapid firepower. No one NEEDS that, IN MY OPINION. I'm not trying to start some ideological war here. My point was to show that police officers in the case we were discussing, were probably within their legal rights based on two supreme court cases I referenced. There are a few more cases that touch on this topic as well, but those two are probably the most relevent (from my memory of my studies). I would venture to say we don't have the full story as well. The article was definitely objective, like so much of post-Hearst journalism.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but wtf are you spouting? (See Underlined)

Ever since the North Hollywood Shootout, just about everyone of the 12,000 Police Agencies in the US carries some form of AR15 or .223 based semi automatic rifle in their cars... I can point to about 20 local, very tiny agencies that do here, and they have about 20 officers on the street for the entire 3 shift day, PERIOD. The Omaha Police Department is pushing non-certified recruits to get certified in rifle before the end of their Field Training because they are SO NEEDED in Omaha (which is not one of those tiny agencies). The Agency has even expanded it's list of acceptable AR-15 manufacturers to include even some questionable (DPMS...) just to get officers a rifle.

As to the whole idea that no one needs, no one needs fast cars, no one needs big TV's and dishes, no one needs fancy phones or computers, yet we still do buy them. The idea that because something fits into a certain category of consumer products and is based loosely on a military variant of it, doesn't mean that it is used to kill people only. Target shooting is an OLYMPIC sport, and there is an event dedicated to shooting military rifles, not to mention thousands of local events in the same, and thats shooting at bull's eyes and not blues (People shaped targets).

I would much rather have an AR15 in my house, or some other assault rifle, than be forced to defend my home with a .22LR or a .410, because I mean, lets face it, the 12 Gauge shot gun round is used by our military, so lets ban it too from civilian sale if you don't have a license. The important thing to remember, is that in various scenarios in which you need help, the police are only so close. The average response time across the US for Police going to violent crimes and home invasions is about 5 minutes. Five minutes is a hell of a long time to defend yourself or others, and I'd much rather be fighting with a rifle than a handgun when the shit hits the fan.

And lets not even talk about defending your home and family from violent protests, uprising, etc... You also forget that it is also a US Citizens DUTY to defend the constitution and it's values from enemies, both foreign and domestic, should the call need, and the ability to form a militia during various scenarios.

[06RedfireGT]

Originally Posted by MustanG_guy17 Sure it isn't right. But what if he really was planning to go shoot some people? What about those people's family's? If he didn't want this to happen he shouldn't have created the situation to begin with. I have no problem with what I read. JMO He could have went and killed tons of innocent people and then we would be talking about how the heck could he have done that.

The only problem is, this guy did nothing illegal. Could the exact same thing not be said about anybody who buys a gun?

That is a VERY slippery slope that we do not want to go down.

Originally Posted by AndrewA. Why?? He just stated his opinion and you kinda are trying to start shit with him? Why not educated him on an assualt wepon like futureMACH1racer just did.

So trying to spark a debate is starting shit with somebody???

Originally Posted by NoColoradoGT It is not that I am some power to tell you whether you should or shouldn't. It is just simply my opinion, even as a gun owner and hunter, that people do not NEED assault weapons. I grew up in a big city and have seen the havoc that firearms like AK-47's can have in gang related drive by shootings in metropolis areas. I've seen what those weapons do to police officers as well, especially when you consider that the average police beat doesn't contain any assault weapons to retaliate. Anyone remember the Norco Bank Robbery Shootout in '80? Or the North Hollywood Standoff in '97? I'm not saying every assault weapon owner is like this. FutureMACH1Racer, thank you for that reply. I was aware of a good amount of that information, but picked up some knowledge as well, so thank you. The portion you mentioned regarding police officer deaths is what I'm interested in. I'm saying that situations like the North Hollywood Standoff could have ended faster and differently if police officers were better equipped, and if criminals did not have access to such rapid firepower. I don't want anyone to get me wrong! I own a .357 and a 9 mm. for home protection as well as a 12 gauge and Winchester Super Shadow for hunting, and then a couple pellet guns and air rifles for fun. I am very pro-second amendment. But the fact is, no one needs to have an AK in their home. No one needs an AR-15 to go hunting. Those weapons, again, IN MY OPINION, should be left to our military and our police. They have nothing to do with sheer firepower, its about the rapid firepower. No one NEEDS that, IN MY OPINION. I'm not trying to start some ideological war here. My point was to show that police officers in the case we were discussing, were probably within their legal rights based on two supreme court cases I referenced. There are a few more cases that touch on this topic as well, but those two are probably the most relevent (from my memory of my studies). I would venture to say we don't have the full story as well. The article was definitely objective, like so much of post-Hearst journalism.

The problem with saying someone does not need a certain type of firearm is a stepping stone to banning all types of guns.

"I grew up in the car scene and have seen the havoc that cars like Mustangs can have in illegal street racing in metropolis areas. I've seen what those do do against police cruisers as well, especially when you consider that the average police cruiser doesn't have over 250hp to keep up."

Let me ask you this. Why do you NEED a Mustang GT? A Mustang GT is designed to go much faster than the other cars on the road, much higher than any speed limit and could cause an accident because it is so fast. Why does anyone NEED a car with so much power when a car with half of the power still will get you from point A to point B? A fast car like a Mustang or a Camaro could be used for illegal street racing or evading the police, so lets ban every car over 300hp.

See what I mean? Someone doesn't have to need something to have it. They have it because that is what they like, and that is what they want. They shouldn't have to justify it to someone else. Just because something could be used in an illegal manner, doesn't mean it will and it is not fair to penalize all of the law abiding citizens because some gang banger homie might use an AK in a drive by.

[Alamo Stang]

Fucking Tom Cruise

[slikirish]

Originally Posted by JASonic I wonder if there is more to this story. Like all internet stories, there is going to be "slant" to the publishing agenda. Whats the name of that site? How do they get readers? Just a question. I dont trust shit anymore. Wow...you know what this kind of sounds like????..... ask any person of color around because they're used to it. Sounds like profiling. This just happened to be a white guy at his house and not a black dude in a car.

Really? The race card? C'mon man

[NorCalWhtHrse]

[Imran]

my city is one of the safest in america, and once at work when our new boss didn't want to tell the security password to the security company on the phone because of doubt, they sent plain jane cops with AR15's with eotech's. I'm pretty sure ALOT if not all police agencies carry them.

[slikirish]

Cops b/c he didn't want to give out a password?

[Perfectcircle]

Originally Posted by MustanG_guy17 Sure it isn't right. But what if he really was planning to go shoot some people? What about those people's family's? If he didn't want this to happen he shouldn't have created the situation to begin with. I have no problem with what I read. JMO He could have went and killed tons of innocent people and then we would be talking about how the heck could he have done that.

He already had a collection of guns, i don't see why his recent purchases with his tax refund were any sort of a red flag. He could had just as easily killed his ex co workers with the guns he already owned. Why waste time buying them and waiting for the background check, yada yada. Besides, how many guns do you need to kill people? just one. You really think someone is gonna suit up with ten guns, knives, grenades and war paint to go kill some DOT workers? I don't see the red flags, that's all. There may be more to the story that we're not getting. A two day ( i think thats what it said, i forget) hold on his guns by the PD after the seizure? What good does that do.