rushmc 23 #101 January 29, 2013 QuoteThanks for noticing your obvious mistake. I would say their safety is equally important, and harder to ensure than yours or mine. They are more exposed to crime and danger, and so they have a higher threshold to meet in order to remain safe. Much like the Navy needs Aircraft carriers to defend itself. While the Navy's safety is no less important than yours, you don't really need an aircraft carrier to ensure yours. ETA: and a rigging ticket! So I know you didn't miss that mistake, you made it intentionally. That is not the way to encourage constructive discussion. We could have discussed it just as easily with a truthful thread title. Lets be genuine plz. I was hardly less than genuine But I know it does not work with those like you who parse phrases anyway so what the hell OTH I see you feel the right to pick who needs to be safe and who doesnt Glad the Constitution is between you and my guns"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #102 January 29, 2013 :[ I didn't parse phrases. I also didn't say one had more of a right to safety than the other.....in fact I said the exact opposite. You might be being genuine, just not accurate. I may have misspoke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #103 January 29, 2013 Quote:[ I didn't parse phrases. I also didn't say one had more of a right to safety than the other.....in fact I said the exact opposite. You might be being genuine, just not accurate. I may have misspoke. I will take this as an apology for now By this I am giving you the benefit of the doubt this time but dont mistake this My life and personal safety are as important as any government fuck head as is yours and only you and I can take that as far as it can go"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #104 January 29, 2013 Lol. Im not sure they taught reading comprehension back when you were in school. But whatever floats your boat brother. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #105 January 29, 2013 QuoteWell here's my dog... Good dog.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #106 January 29, 2013 He is really good till he slobbers all over the scope... Then his groups get a little big...lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #107 January 30, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuotehttps://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0 The PDF's on the right 3rd one down Section 3.1 And actually, the whole link is about AR rifle in 5.56 for home defense Good enough for them but not us? I might be reading this differently to you, however personal defense for an LEO =! home defense. As I read it, this is for guys on duty? If the DHS is buying 7000 of these purely for their officers to take home and use for defending their home then I stand corrected. Seems unlikely though. Especially when you read the rest of the criteria for the weapon. Their words Not mine Home defense Nope. The DHS does not once mention "home defense" The author of the article does.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #108 January 30, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere are lots of things LEO's do to improve their chances that a regular guy wouldn't want to or need to. Such as? And why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? And how do you define "need" that covers all situations. That's just crazy. Ok - so you wear kevlar regularly? Nope...what does that have to do with wanting to or needing to? You evaded that one question and didn't address the others. Sorry- missed this question in the thread myself! QuoteI missed this the first time. I'm going to jump in with Pops. What did I do when I was a cop that I don't do now? I've apparently forgotten. Err - put yourself intentionally in harms way? I didn't evade anything. You asked for an example of something a regular guy doesn't want to or need to be able to do and I gave you one. Why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? No reason at all, but there are levels of this, starting with window locks, and ending up with nuclear deterrent. Where we differ is where the line is drawn as to what is and isn't appropriate. And how do you define "need" that covers all situations You can't - which is why this RFP isn't talking about home defense. Its not designed for that. Its talking about personal defense for LEO's The original point here (that has got lost in the fud), is that the thread title is complete bullshit, the DHS never said anything of the sort. I appreciate you guys are trying to confuse that to make your own point, but fundamentally you are wrong.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #109 January 30, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere are lots of things LEO's do to improve their chances that a regular guy wouldn't want to or need to. Such as? And why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? And how do you define "need" that covers all situations. That's just crazy. Ok - so you wear kevlar regularly? Nope...what does that have to do with wanting to or needing to? You evaded that one question and didn't address the others. Sorry- missed this question in the thread myself! QuoteI missed this the first time. I'm going to jump in with Pops. What did I do when I was a cop that I don't do now? I've apparently forgotten. Err - put yourself intentionally in harms way? I didn't evade anything. You asked for an example of something a regular guy doesn't want to or need to be able to do and I gave you one. Why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? No reason at all, but there are levels of this, starting with window locks, and ending up with nuclear deterrent. Where we differ is where the line is drawn as to what is and isn't appropriate. And how do you define "need" that covers all situations You can't - which is why this RFP isn't talking about home defense. Its not designed for that. Its talking about personal defense for LEO's The original point here (that has got lost in the fud), is that the thread title is complete bullshit, the DHS never said anything of the sort. I appreciate you guys are trying to confuse that to make your own point, but fundamentally you are wrong. WRONG It is talking about Personal defense Does not matter for who My person is worth defending You think that its not I guess NOT once in the RFP does it call an AR platform rifle an assault weapon. It does call it a sporting rifle however And those they are picking have select fire choices Sorry An AR IS a good choice for personal or home defense (especially in rural areas around cities) Not a debatable point Limiting it is a farse And I think I agree with kallend a bit on this The AR or assault weapon ban is a barganing chip (shamefully). The feds want a data base That is the end game To stop it, you dont start And before the idiots write new law, they should enforce existing law and see if any of that works Now, you can go back to drawing some silly line around need Me, I am going to keep fighting for my rights Against those like you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #110 January 30, 2013 In case you missed it, the following is the title of the RFP QuotePersonal Defense Weapons Solicitation Also of note The RFP stated select fire will semi-auto and auto No burst selection"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #111 January 30, 2013 Quote In case you missed it, the following is the title of the RFP Quote Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation Also of note The RFP stated select fire will semi-auto and auto No burst selection So you admit home defense is not mentioned. Glad we got that cleared up. Nice try at back tracking thoughNever try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #112 January 30, 2013 Quote Quote In case you missed it, the following is the title of the RFP Quote Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation Also of note The RFP stated select fire will semi-auto and auto No burst selection So you admit home defense is not mentioned. Glad we got that cleared up. Nice try at back tracking though If you would read back you would not need to play the ass So you still want to take my personal defense weapon? Firgures Conservative dont like guns They do not buy one Liberals dont like guns They done want anyone to have guns If a conservative is a vegitarian They dont eat meat If a lib is a vegitarian They do not want anyone to eat meat And the pattern continues BTW Persona defense does not include defense of ones home?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #113 January 30, 2013 Quote WRONG It is talking about Personal defense Now we are getting somewhere. Well done on re-reading the original rfp and finally understanding that your thread title is incorrect. Quote Does not matter for who If you say so,although the RFP is for LEO's specifically - unless they are buying you one as well? Quote My person is worth defending You think that its not I guess Not true at all. I have no problems with you having guns, and I am sure you are a nice guy and are worth defending! Quote NOT once in the RFP does it call an AR platform rifle an assault weapon. It does call it a sporting rifle however No debate here Quote And those they are picking have select fire choices No debate here Quote Sorry An AR IS a good choice for personal or home defense (especially in rural areas around cities) Not a debatable point Everything is debatable - I am sure there are many people who feel a pistol they can carry at all times is a better weapon than an AR where that isn't so practical, but each to their own! I have carried military rifles on exercise in the UK, and when you can't put them down AT ALL for hours/days they very swiftly become a pain in the arse! If you think an AR makes more sense I have no problem with that, I am genuinely interested here however in your opinion - for home defense, surely the best weapon is the one you have to hand - which in most cases is surely far more practically a pistol? Quote Limiting it is a farse Yeah - possibly, comes back to where you draw the line - but far more importantly Quote And I think I agree with kallend a bit on this The AR or assault weapon ban is a barganing chip (shamefully). Agreed. I think its a bargaining chip, and its shameful that they need it in order to get some sensible legislation through to close the "private sale loophole" normally misleadingly called the "gun show loophole". Doesn't matter what its called, you know what I mean. QuoteThe feds want a data base That is the end game To stop it, you dont start I'm in two minds here, you may be right, however I have, and I suspect you have zero proof of this other than some conspiracy theories. QuoteAnd before the idiots write new law, they should enforce existing law and see if any of that works I don't disagree - still think that loophole needs closing and this is a good thing. I thought your post about how its done with a pre-check was a great idea. Quote Now, you can go back to drawing some silly line around need Me, I am going to keep fighting for my rights Against those like you You'll be fighting shadows then - I like guns! Been watching hickok45's videos recently - that guy makes me laugh- I reckon he's doing the vids purely to land some ammo sponsorship to sustain his habit - and fair play to him! (Just as an aside, I was once lucky enough to get a few shots with an L115A3 - that was a beautiful rifle but I nearly choked when I found out how much they were worth)Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #114 January 30, 2013 Fair enough on your reply's However No where in the RFP did I see that these personal defense weapons were for LEO's There are being ordered by Dept of Homeland Defense though"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #115 January 30, 2013 One more thing I have no problem with back ground checks for private sales It happens here in Iowa regularly now But only if it a criminal offense to keep the record of the check once completed The Feds wanting a data base is the reason That can NOT be allowed to happen"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #116 January 30, 2013 QuoteFair enough on your reply's However No where in the RFP did I see that these personal defense weapons were for LEO's There are being ordered by Dept of Homeland Defense though Yeah -fair point. As you say, its kind of implicit Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011 Agency: Department of Homeland Security Office: Immigration & Customs EnforcementNever try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #117 January 31, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere are lots of things LEO's do to improve their chances that a regular guy wouldn't want to or need to. Such as? And why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? And how do you define "need" that covers all situations. That's just crazy. Ok - so you wear kevlar regularly? Nope...what does that have to do with wanting to or needing to? You evaded that one question and didn't address the others. Sorry- missed this question in the thread myself! QuoteI missed this the first time. I'm going to jump in with Pops. What did I do when I was a cop that I don't do now? I've apparently forgotten. Err - put yourself intentionally in harms way? I didn't evade anything. You asked for an example of something a regular guy doesn't want to or need to be able to do and I gave you one... I know a couple of civilians who wear kevlar on a daily basis. One is a cab driver. The other is a jewlery shop owner. Both have been robbed at gunpoint. Both have decided that the hassle and discomfort of wearing body armor are worth the protection it gives. And while I wouldn't consider what the cab driver does as "intentionally putting himself into harms way," he does go to somewhat sketchy areas and pick up somewhat questionable people."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #118 January 31, 2013 QuoteFor instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV? Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #119 January 31, 2013 QuoteQuoteFor instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV? Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid. Owning "a" weapon might be. Owning every type of weapon is not.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #120 January 31, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteFor instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV? Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid. Owning "a" weapon might be. Owning every type of weapon is not. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #121 January 31, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV? Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid. Owning "a" weapon might be. Owning every type of weapon is not. Where in the Constitution does it say that? "keep and bear arms" not "keep and bear all arms" Which is why SCOTUS has upheld other restrictions of the 2nd amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #122 January 31, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV? Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid. Owning "a" weapon might be. Owning every type of weapon is not. Where in the Constitution does it say that? "keep and bear arms" not "keep and bear all arms" Which is why SCOTUS has upheld other restrictions of the 2nd amendment. Where does it say "only keep and bear the arms the government says you can keep and bear" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #123 January 31, 2013 It doesn't state any/all or any variation thereof. That's why SCOTUS has ruled that other types of restrictions may be placed on the 2nd amendment. Such as automatic weapons restrictions. You don't have to agree with my reading of the Constitution. That's why we have a SCOTUS. You don't have to agree with SCOTUS. But they don't give a shit. ETA: You will notice nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it mention felons being excluded from firearm possession or the mentally ill. But those people have had their rights restricted. SCOTUS has said you can also have yours restricted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #124 January 31, 2013 So you are claiming the Supreme Court has banned assault weapons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #125 January 31, 2013 ....No...I never said anything of the sort. A) SCOTUS doesn't ban anything, they simply decide if laws (that ban things etc.) are constitutionally sound. B) They HAVE ruled SEVERAL times that WEAPONS restrictions of varying types are allowed under the constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
