Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on April 27, 2008, 09:18:38 AM
-
Been traveling a bit and haven't been able to keep up, hope this isn't a repeat, but thought it was worth posting.
Despite the fact there are more than 200 million guns in circulation, there is a certain tranquility and civility about American life.
Got to wonder if there was some BBC top level teeth gnashing at this story being filed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7359513.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7359513.stm)
Is there a risk in a misconceived stereotype being disproved?
-
Really if you get the heck out of the larger cities most people are pretty laid back. I live 100 miles from chicago and you can definately tell a difference in peoples attitudes here from those in chicago.
-
That has got to be one of the shortest, yet most interesting articles I've read in a long time. I'm a UK/USA dual national, and whilst I have noticed that laid-back attitude in smaller towns in the USA, I'd never thought about it in those terms.
However, I'm not sure to what extent the relaxed attitude I just mentioned is due to (if it is at all) gun control (or the lack of it).
Thanks for posting that.
<S>
Yossarian
-
Living in a big city really allows the aholes to revel in their aholeness... Why be polite to someone you will never see again right? Problem is.. they take it wherever they go...
worse.. they vote. Fearful nanny aholes.. and they vote...
lazs
-
I'm surprised it was published. The author is probably fired by now and I suspect Beet will have his job shortly.
-
Is there a risk in a misconceived stereotype being disproved?
I believe the writer went overboard and discredited his own story with the London violence thingie.
We all know and have been told repeatedly by an insider that there is no violence there to speak of.
-
"an armed society is a polite society, manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"
robert a heinlein
-
Lmao, no violence in London?
Errr, not quite right - even the Home Secretary (who is supposed to be in charge of the security etc in the country) walks around with a stab vest on (in her own constituency). There are a lot of places that its just not safe to walk around at, any time of the day. Gun crime does happen (young kids etc - up to the "older" generation)
Having travelled a lot between the States and the UK, I much prefer the States - hence an ongoing plan to leave this country, and emigrate (legally - yes, i had to put that in just in case).
I love my country, but fear this government (if you can call it that) and the affects of the ongoing social engineering policies in place.
Wurzel
-
gp.. every exbrit I know here.. and there are a lot...seems to have firearms. I was talking to one the other day at the barbers. He winked and told me that he loves to tweak friends and family from the old country when they hear.. or see.. that he has firearms.. especially the handguns.
lazs
-
Lol, sounds about right Laz - the culture over here is (mostly) vehemently opposed to the private holding of firearms (handguns etc banned). Its not dramatically reduced the amount of gun crime (and to be honest, were I minded to, I could walk into a few of the local pubs and buy one anyway).
Once moved over, it would depend on the location of where I lived - if the police had a good response time, probably wouldnt buy one, but if we move to a more remote location where the police cant get to in a reasonable amount of time - nothing on earth will stop me procuring a personal weapon - legally of course.
Obviously, if I get the chance to hunt, I'll be buying a long - calibre and size dependent on prey (barrett 50 not so good for rabbit hunting - not much left to eat..lol)
Wurzel
-
Lol, sounds about right Laz - the culture over here is (mostly) vehemently opposed to the private holding of firearms (handguns etc banned). Its not dramatically reduced the amount of gun crime (and to be honest, were I minded to, I could walk into a few of the local pubs and buy on
Wasn't it Nashwan or Cpxxx that was saying you couldn't get your hands on a gun in the UK without a lot of work?
-
Legally Moot, its a major hassle to procure a private firearm in the UK.
Handguns - banned
Shotguns - you need a valid reason, lockable storage and a police check before even being considered for a shotgun certificate.
Air Rifle - If the airrifle is below 12 ft/lbs - you can own as many as you like - but you are very very restricted on where you can shoot them (legally - we have a lot of air rifle shooters that dont care about where and when - which destroys the sport for the reponsible guys - which I admit really annoys me)
If the airrifle is above 12 ft/lbs, you need a firearms certificate - with the same bits n bobs as outlined for the shotguns.
If you want a "real" rifle - you need a firearms certificate, a good reason and very deep pockets - it can be done, but its restricted.
We've had too many moron's commiting horrendous acts (which could have been stopped by the application of the various rules etc regarding ownership) for the nanny state. So, instead of applying the rules that were there in the first place, its ban, ban, ban now. Typical knee jerk reaction for this and previous governments (which in my opinion could have been avoided by people doing their jobs - ho hum)
Wurzel
-
I meant including thru illegal channels.. I think it was Lazs that told them he could either go over there and easily get his hands on one, or that it was easy enough for someone to smuggle a gun into the country. That the ban was effectively only disarming lawful owners.
-
Legally Moot, its a major hassle to procure a private firearm in the UK.
LEGALLY procure would have been more accurate. That's the problem with liberal governments--they always assume a law actually PREVENTS people from doing something---if killing someone doesn't give you pause, I'm guessing owning an illegal firearm doesn't either
<edit--dang--Moot rather covered this :D>
-
what I said was that I could get a gun in a week if I were dropped off in any place in england.. I also said that I could make a concealable and deadly firearm in an afternoon in the garage over there.
GP seems to be confirming what I said.
lazs
-
Legally Moot, its a major hassle to procure a private firearm in the UK.
Handguns - banned
Shotguns - you need a valid reason, lockable storage and a police check before even being considered for a shotgun certificate.
Air Rifle - If the airrifle is below 12 ft/lbs - you can own as many as you like - but you are very very restricted on where you can shoot them (legally - we have a lot of air rifle shooters that dont care about where and when - which destroys the sport for the reponsible guys - which I admit really annoys me)
If the airrifle is above 12 ft/lbs, you need a firearms certificate - with the same bits n bobs as outlined for the shotguns.
If you want a "real" rifle - you need a firearms certificate, a good reason and very deep pockets - it can be done, but its restricted.
We've had too many moron's commiting horrendous acts (which could have been stopped by the application of the various rules etc regarding ownership) for the nanny state. So, instead of applying the rules that were there in the first place, its ban, ban, ban now. Typical knee jerk reaction for this and previous governments (which in my opinion could have been avoided by people doing their jobs - ho hum)
Wurzel
Hence the UK Olympic Shooting team has some problems.
BBC
Many British competitors currently have to travel to Switzerland to practise but changes to the rules could help Britain's medal hopes in Beijing and also at the 2012 London Games.
-
Good article. Um;erss they can resist the lure, this should pull out some amerihaters soon. :D
-
I kinda got a kick out of the "every household is required by local ordinance to possess a gun," line,
and whole heartedly agree with the part that says "if you break into their homes they will probably kill you."
-
if the police had a good response time, probably wouldnt buy one
Wurzel
that is not a good reason.
the police have no obligation to be your personal bodyguard.
protecting the public is one thing, protecting an individual is something else.
the motto "to protect and serve" is just that. a motto, nothing more.
depending on the police for protection is like depending on the umbrella you left at home in a closet to keep you dry when it starts raining.
(how is that for a run on sentence?)
-
Fair point DieAz, but I'm not expecting the police to protect me as an individual - I am however expecting the police to respond in a reasonable timeframe to stop my family and property being invaded/destroyed/whatever (which is their job? - not slamming on any police/Leo's on the board)
Were I to be in a place where that response time was unlikely to be met (ie, out in the wilds, living a few miles outta town etc - then I'd definitely be in the market for a personal weapon - plus getting a refresher course/update course on all that entails with that purchase).
Obviously, I'd love to just buy one - (no, not in the UK) - but would need to have a valid reason for me (everyone has different views on whats valid)
Wurzel
-
Wasn't it Nashwan or Cpxxx that was saying you couldn't get your hands on a gun in the UK without a lot of work?
Beetless says they don`t even have the word gun in the dictionary there. :rofl
-
Fair point DieAz, but I'm not expecting the police to protect me as an individual - I am however expecting the police to respond in a reasonable timeframe to stop my family and property being invaded/destroyed/whatever (which is their job? - not slamming on any police/Leo's on the board)
Were I to be in a place where that response time was unlikely to be met (ie, out in the wilds, living a few miles outta town etc - then I'd definitely be in the market for a personal weapon - plus getting a refresher course/update course on all that entails with that purchase).
Obviously, I'd love to just buy one - (no, not in the UK) - but would need to have a valid reason for me (everyone has different views on whats valid)
Wurzel
I am a friend of law enforcement. the police force in my town pretty much hangs out at my shop. when on duty they hide under a shade tree and from there radar speeders and hand out reams of citations daily. in time I have come to have a fairly deep level of friendship with a few officers and I can tell you what I am about to type with a reasonably sure feeling that my conclusion regarding LEPs can be uniformly applied across the board.
1. he will take care of himself
2. he will attempt to take care of a fellow officer
3. he'll eventually get around to taking care of the public if it is not too much trouble. he would rather arrive after a bit and take the report.
not an unreasonable thing to do or attitude to maintain, most are a family men who want to return home after the end of their shift.
as has always been the case we are each of us responsible for our own safety and well being. here in the united states we are permitted to do so at present. we of this generation owe it to our forefathers to pass the same freedoms onto our progeny.
-
Wasn't it Nashwan or Cpxxx that was saying you couldn't get your hands on a gun in the UK without a lot of work?
I said you couldn't get one where I live without alot of work AND alot of risk.
I offer anyone to come and try, but be advised, if you ask the wrong person or manage to get caught along the way you will spend alot of time here albeit at our tax payers expense. When I say alot...try 20 years.
-
Nice insight Storch, ty. Looks like I'll be in the market once over (oh dear, I can see this ending badly :D - I may have to extend my trailer :D)
I'm so tempted to ask for opinions on favourite personal weapons (but I wont...errr,...ish ;))
Curval - yep, lots of time to consider their actions - I dont agree with the ban, but thats a completely different argument.
Wurzel
-
I said you couldn't get one where I live without alot of work AND alot of risk.
I offer anyone to come and try, but be advised, if you ask the wrong person or manage to get caught along the way you will spend alot of time here albeit at our tax payers expense. When I say alot...try 20 years.
if I needed a firearm and there was a hardware store I would make one in about a day from common materials. it would work efficiently and if I so chose silently as well.
-
so curval... you are not saying that it can't be done... getting or making a firearm.. it is just the draconian penalties for having one that stop people?
Why then... not just allow the good guys to have firearms and make the 5th century laws you have now only for criminal use of one? wouldn't that work just as well?
lazs
-
Storch I don't doubt that...but you had better not get caught with it.
lazs...different culture here. We try and stop the crimminal gun violence before it happens rather than wait to punnish someone after the fact. It doesn't always work for sure, but I'd rather the island stay this way than have everyone brandishing guns thanks very much.
-
HMMMMMM...............
Obama done stepped on his..................
or...............
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DougGiles/2008/04/26/bitter,_clingy_gun_owners_of_america?page=full&comments=true
I wonder?
Should all gun owners start huggin n kissin their firearms?
Oh wait!
He said it in San Francisco so that ...................
makes it alright?
I mean we all KNOW that politicians are liars when we vote right?
Sooooo..........
Actually that is one thing I find VERY IRRITATING, the they all lie thing, at the very least I would prefer to vote for one SMART we enough to KNOW how to lie well.
IMHO It's the PARTY system we currently have. TOO much control has gone to the demlicans and the republicrats.
IMHO they have become the SAME party and are just putting on a dog and pony show for us.
-
I found this part VERY INTERESTING......
"Here are eight factoids I found that also cause backwards little old me to clutch my wood and metal friend called the gun:
1. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
2. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
3. Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
4. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
5. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
8. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million."
That many dead due to.........................
-
Unfortunately gun control will be just about the only issue us voters can actually make a difference on in November. No other hot button issue can be changed- abortion? We'll still have them, even if McCain is elected. Capital punishment? It won't stop with Obama or Hillary. Iraq? Don't make me laugh- we're there for at least for more years no matter who's President.
Vote Democrat and we'll have more gun control laws, vote Republican and we'll have more erosion of the rest of our civil liberties.
Sad we call this democracy.
-
Iraq? Don't make me laugh- we're there for at least for(four) more years no matter who's President.
I hope you are right. I'm concerned we will have to have a semi-permanant force there.
-
but I'd rather the island stay this way than have everyone brandishing guns thanks very much.
Where does everyone brandish a gun? Besides maybe... places like mogadishu?
-
Unfortunately gun control will be just about the only issue us voters can actually make a difference on in November. No other hot button issue can be changed- abortion? We'll still have them, even if McCain is elected. Capital punishment? It won't stop with Obama or Hillary. Iraq? Don't make me laugh- we're there for at least for more years no matter who's President.
Vote Democrat and we'll have more gun control laws, vote Republican and we'll have more erosion of the rest of our civil liberties.
Sad we call this democracy.
Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the others.
-
Official 2007 crimes involving firearms in Great Britain:
(http://www.fmft.net/UK%20Gun%20Crime%20Figures.gif)
Yes I know the figures on the chart aren't correct. The chart itself is correct though. 18,489 recorded crimes involving a firearm.
At least 46% of all firearms offences in this country last year were with illegally owned weapons (handguns and sawn off shotguns) and a large percentage of the rest with merely imitation firearms........and still the liberals are screaming for more constraints. <insert old rolleyes smilie>
And it's all cos of that numbnuts in Dunblane. Actually, no, lemme rephrase that, it's all cos of that numbnuts in Dunblane, the other one in Hungerford and thousands of screaming liberals with nothing better to do than stick their bloody noses in.
I wanna consealed carry license and a .45!
-
Hey wurzel...I hope you you decide to come to the US...know we'd love to have ya. Having met you in person, I can truly say America needs more folks like you. You fit in just fine...but with some slight "adaptations"...
When the time comes, splurge...get some really BIG guns. Get LOTS of guns. Then come to Arkansas and be my guest. We have deer, bobcats, mountain lions, bears, squirrels, coyotes, wild turkeys, wild boar (razorbacks), and there are rumored to be panthers. Bring your guns. We will shoot stuff in the deerwoods.
A gun "too big"...not in Arkansas. "Not much left to eat"?..not in Arkansas.
We'll get some 88mm AA guns and go deer hunting. Who cares if there's not enough to eat...we'll grab a Sonic burger & onion rings on the way home. We passed three Sonics and 2 McDonalds on the way there, right? Some of 'em are good eatin'....the rest Cod intended for us to take a bead on and blow up just for grins. If it tastes like chicken, grab some BBQ sauce and fire up the grill...if it don't...blow it to smithereens for fun...that's why Smith & Wesson makes hollow points.
After that we'll get some hand grenades and go fishing.
Take a flanel shirt and rip the arms off...get yourself a baseball hat with a rebel flag on it...call everyone you see "Bubba", and get a wallet on a chain.
(http://www.entertainmentworlds.com/Larry.jpg)
We'll have you turned into a proper redneck in no time! :aok
Then you can send pictures of yourself back to the UK...and they will go..."dayumm...I ain't gonna mess with Gary!"
ROX
-
Good find wrag.....Never saw those stats before.......heres a video some sent me...like always...everybody
probably have seen it...but I'll share it again.....(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c261/Kaw1000/th_GunControlWitness.jpg) (http://s29.photobucket.com/albums/c261/Kaw1000/?action=view¤t=GunControlWitness.flv)
-
Damn me, hot coffee, noses, desks and keyboards just do not mix........ :lol
Had me laughing fit to burst there Rox......ya lunatic.......
I'll see ya online tonight..... :D
Wurzel
-
Im gun toting and church going, but Im not bitter.
-
The nation definately has problems. Always has, always will....but I loath you people that always talk as if your life sucks from living in these United States....truth is your lives probably do suck and would always suck wherever you call home.
Dont be such a drag all the time. Be happy :)
-
I`m get a little more "clingy" that what I already was.
Anyone that enjoys such minor things as freedom and personal rights , I would advise to do the same.
Freedom comes at a very high price. It can only be taken if you give it away.
-
Git-R-Done.
-
Yeager, my life doesn't suck- in fact it's pretty damn good, because I am a Liberal Elitist. My hand wringing is over the plight of the Board Neocons- the little people.
I'm all about compassion.
-
swoop.. far as I am concerned.. you can live near me and have a CCW and a .45 anytime.. none of my business what kind of gun you own or if you carry it or not. Unlike others.. I don't think I am your new mommy.
curval.. Not sure if you are being evasive or just dingy. Now you are saying that besides the middle ages style penalties you have imposed on otherwise law abiding citizens... that it doesn't matter anyway cause... You don't have a gun culture?
I would say it probly is not too big a deal anyway cause so long as your amusement park of an island stays wealthy.. and there is no disaster (man made or natural) of any size.... You should be fine in your womb of false security. Probly be fine for years.
lazs
-
yep.. I feel like I don't have much choice either and will have to vote based on just a couple of issues like guns and vouchers and taxes and maybe getting some oil exploration done and some nukes and slowing creeping socialism and making sure the liberal SC judges aren't appointed....
well. guess that was more than a few but still.....
lazs
-
I just pray you never need an abortion, Lazs.
-
on that we can agree.
lazs
-
Great vid Kaw..I wish it went longer to see those p'os suits respond.
-
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Interesting but irrelevant facts in some cases. Gun ownership was not high in Cambodia before pol pot, and people did defend themselves, it was a civil war you know. I understand your motivation but think before you post stuff like this, it makes you look worse than the anti-gun nuts.
-
curval.. Not sure if you are being evasive or just dingy. Now you are saying that besides the middle ages style penalties you have imposed on otherwise law abiding citizens... that it doesn't matter anyway cause... You don't have a gun culture?
I would say it probly is not too big a deal anyway cause so long as your amusement park of an island stays wealthy.. and there is no disaster (man made or natural) of any size.... You should be fine in your womb of false security. Probly be fine for years.
lazs
lol
There is no middle ages penalties on anyone...unless you have a gun. I have yet to meet ANYONE here that thinks otherwise, thus the difference in cultures.
Yea, yea...the disney comparison again. Broken record.
We had a major fire at our power generation plant here...knocked out the entire city for two days. That would qualify as a disaster wouldn't it? How about a cat 3 (verging on 4) hurricane...had one in 2003. That qualifys too right...you did say "of any size"? No incidents requiring a gun. Wierd huh?
-
I didn't know the US of A could be compared to the Soviet Union, Turkey, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia.
If the state of the US of A is the same as those countries then there is big trouble brewing.
-
No incidents requiring a gun. Wierd huh?
I guess grizzly bears and cougars are fairly rare there?
-
I am a Liberal Elitist.
Wow, we all knew this but had no idea you did. :aok
-
Anybody got a link to the speech referenced?
-
Unfortunately gun control will be just about the only issue us voters can actually make a difference on in November. No other hot button issue can be changed- abortion? We'll still have them, even if McCain is elected. Capital punishment? It won't stop with Obama or Hillary. Iraq? Don't make me laugh- we're there for at least for more years no matter who's President.
Vote Democrat and we'll have more gun control laws, vote Republican and we'll have more erosion of the rest of our civil liberties.
Sad we call this democracy.
there's really already enopugh laws on the books.......the problem seems to be enforcement.......and the fact that no matter hwat laws are made, the criminals will always have them....period.......and the point in the beginning is well made......without a way to defend ourselves, we're all nothing more than subjects.(i don't own any firearms either, but am thankful for that choice)
<<S>>
-
curval... what other crimes of posession of an object carry a 20 year prison sentence on your island?
You don't think a 20 year penalty for owning a firearm is draconian?
lazs
-
so curval... you are not saying that it can't be done... getting or making a firearm.. it is just the draconian penalties for having one that stop people?
Why then... not just allow the good guys to have firearms and make the 5th century laws you have now only for criminal use of one? wouldn't that work just as well?
lazs
I'm still waiting for Curval to answer those two questions.
If it's the harsh laws for possession that stop people from having guns on Bermuda, wouldn't harsh laws for use of guns work just as well?
The basic point is that it is the laws that keep your island gun-free, right? Law and the respect for the law?
So why wouldn't law and the respect for law keep people from using guns in criminal activities if guns were allowed?
-
(i don't own any firearms either, but am thankful for that choice)
And there you go.
Thank you for supporting a right even though you do not participate in gun ownership at this time.
Very rare here.
-
Jackal, I'm a gun owner who believes that if our Government allows unstable delusional old hippie revolutionaries to own firearms- say, someone like me, for instance- then we're in deep doo doo.
-
And there you go.
Thank you for supporting a right even though you do not participate in gun ownership at this time.
Very rare here.
WELL....I'M NOT THE SMARTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD...BUT AM DEFINITLY SMART ENOUGHTO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIS-ARM THE PEOPLE.......and although i choose to not own any right now, i am an archery shooter, and guess who they'll come for next? besides...when somehting bad happens, someone needs to be able to help those of us that don't have any.
<<S>> to all of those of you who've taken your valuable time to take the proper firearm training, and keep yourselves proficient!!
-
Jackal, I'm a gun owner who believes that if our Government allows unstable delusional old hippie revolutionaries to own firearms- say, someone like me, for instance- then we're in deep doo doo.
Maybe you should just get rid of your guns then?
-
Jackal, I'm a gun owner who believes that if our Government allows unstable delusional old hippie revolutionaries to own firearms- say, someone like me, for instance- then we're in deep doo doo.
just keep your training current. got o shoots at your local club......have fun with it.......
<<S>>
-
I'm still waiting for Curval to answer those two questions.
If it's the harsh laws for possession that stop people from having guns on Bermuda, wouldn't harsh laws for use of guns work just as well?
The basic point is that it is the laws that keep your island gun-free, right? Law and the respect for the law?
So why wouldn't law and the respect for law keep people from using guns in criminal activities if guns were allowed?
I am really beginning to question your reading capabilities Toad.
I will answer them directly, then address your question:
1. I am NOT saying it can't be done. Getting or making a firearm is possible in any country. Making the bullets might actually be tougher HERE though...I understand it isn't difficult to make your own ammo given the right equipment....good luck finding it. Possible though I am sure.
2. We don't allow anyone to have guns. Period. Good guys or bad guys.
Now, as to your question Toad...we simply don't want guns freely available. There hasn't been a death here from accidental discharge of a firearm since I have been alive....that's one reason. We lost a governor, his aide de camp and his dog to gun violence in the early seventies.
We hanged the culprit.
We simply don't want them Toad...that is all there is to it. You have your laws, we have ours. So far ours have worked out *fairly well*. Nothing is perfect in this world.
If things get to the point that they have in the US maybe we will revisit the concept of gun ownership. We are nowhere near that stage yet. As to recreational shooting...if you have the desire you can join a club. I thought I did a few months ago but the type of shooting these guys did wasn't for me. There are a couple of other clubs but frankly I would rather go spend my time playing golf with my sons.
Hunting? Nothing to hunt...and no room to do it in without risking lives anyway.
-
30 years in Texas and the 1 time I have heard a gun shot was while my uncle was shooting skeet at his ranch, go figure.
-
If you trust the local cops to get to you in time...live gun free.
If your country bans guns and NO bad guys have guns...live gun free. My compliments.
I live in a country where bad people have guns.
Personally, I'd rather have a hand cannon and hollow points and air condition a bad guy with more holes than swiss cheese and defend myself in court later than be carried out of a church by six people graveyard dead.
If someone gets over the fence...gets past the German Shephards...gets past the security measures...and breaks into MY house I have no qualms whatsoever with blowing his pumpkin clean off.
ROX
-
2. We don't allow anyone to have guns. Period. Good guys or bad guys.
Things ever get tough I know where I'm going to invade. :aok
-
I'm surprised it was published. The author is probably fired by now and I suspect Beet will have his job shortly.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I am really beginning to question your reading capabilities Toad.
I will answer them directly, then address your question:
Now, as to your question Toad...we simply don't want guns freely available.
Gosh, Curval, I'm like, TOTALLY questioning YOUR reading abilities too!
You didn't answer the questions Laz or I posed.
The question is do you think it is the laws and/or respect for the law that stop people from getting or making firearms (in Laz' first question)?
Pretty simple.. do you think it is the laws or something else?
If you think it IS the law, then wouldn't a law prohibiting illegal use of a firearm work just as well?
Was I clear enough this time?
-
I'm going out for a smoke....oh wait i forgot that's another choice that's been taken away. :mad: Go ahead give up your rights and freedoms that's really what our government and a lot of people in this country want. You don't want to own a gun, then don't, you don't want to eat in a restaurant that allows smoking then don't. You can't choose on your own without the government making that decision for you? Your right in that we do not need more laws or restrictions, we need enforcement of the existing laws! Here's an example of the stupid knee jerk political laws that are created. In Indiana a senator (think) was driving down the interstate in his convertible car with the top down, another car or truck flipped a cigarrette out and it landed in his car. His car catches on fire an he gets mad, so he introduced a bill making it illegal to flip a cigarette out the window! Don't we already have a litter law? Had the law on the books been enforced this probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. Once you give up the freedom of choice it's gone, you seriously think the government will let you have it back as easy as they take it?
-
Anybody got a link to the speech referenced?
I don't have the link anymore but think it was by Susan Gaita Hupp?
She later went on to political office, think in Texas.
YOU KNOW how she voted on firearms issues!
IIRC she was in a cafe with her family having dinner.
Some crazy rammed the cafe and then got out went inside and started shooting people.
She lost both her parents there.
She was OBEYING the law, she had a permit but no one was allowed to carry in a restaurant or such places and her firearm was in her vehicle.
She was VERY angry with the politicians there after. I think to some degree she blamed the politicians and their laws for the needless loss of her parents and the lives of others.
-
Gosh, Curval, I'm like, TOTALLY questioning YOUR reading abilities too!
You didn't answer the questions Laz or I posed.
The question is do you think it is the laws and/or respect for the law that stop people from getting or making firearms (in Laz' first question)?
Pretty simple.. do you think it is the laws or something else?
If you think it IS the law, then wouldn't a law prohibiting illegal use of a firearm work just as well?
Was I clear enough this time?
Question 1. Yes I do think it is the laws that stop people from making or getting firearms. Without that law people would be selling them for profit legally.
Question 2. No it would not work just as well. You are suggesing a law punnishing people for USING a gun illegally is as good, but logically a crime has already been committed for your suggested law to come into effect. A very serious one, involving a deadly weapon. The idea here is to prevent that initial crime from happening.
Clear enough?
-
it is indeed rare for the government to loosen its grip on our testicles but.. some examples would be prohibition and the sunsetting of the semi auto carbine ban.
cap has it right..he realizes that it is the person who takes the responsibility and effort to arm himself for his family and fellows that is what make the country safer.
If 10 million more people joined the NRA.. No democrat would dare to try to disarm us.
lazs
-
no curval it is not clear enough.. if you had a 20 year penalty for selling guns illegally then wouldn't that work as well?
number two...if anyone can make or get a gun..and I can.. I could do it in week on your island.. then it is the penalty not the lack of firearms.. logic says that the penalty causes the lack of firearms but.. logic also says that such a draconian penalty.. or worse.. for misuse would do the same thing.
You of course... point out that "we here" do not want firearms... I am sure you did not mean every person on the island doesn't want firearms... maybe not even a vast majority.. you seem willing to speak for everyone tho. Pure democracy at work.. minus the vote. "We" being enough. If even one law abiding person wants a gun then you are not only taking away his rights but threatening him with some draconian penalty for even possesion....
Do you chop of the hands of theives? that would prevent theft wouldn't it? Maybe just chop off everyones hands right at first and nip it in the bud huh?
Still.. can't get too mad at you.. it is not like you live in a real place.. pretty much an amusement park.. when you want to see life you just go to a real country.. even shoot guns there I have heard.
lazs
-
We had a major fire at our power generation plant here...knocked out the entire city for two days.
Their second biggest disaster was the time a provisions ship sank, taking the entire supply of Bermuda's Hollandaise Sauce to the bottom of the ocean...I saw the video of those poor, poor Aristocrats trying to choke down their asparagus without Hollandaise Sauce, and it was the saddest thing I've ever seen. :(
-
I'm going out for a smoke....oh wait i forgot that's another choice that's been taken away. :mad:
Hey, if anyone tries to light a cigarette around me I'll shoot it out of their damn mouth. The only smoking I like is the smoking from my gun. :mad:
-
Question 1. Yes I do think it is the laws that stop people from making or getting firearms. Without that law people would be selling them for profit legally.
So you are saying that Bermudians do respect and obey a law that punishes them harshly for having/making a firearm.
Question 2. No it would not work just as well. You
Now you are saying that if firearms were legal in Bermuda, Bermudians would not respect or obey a law that would punish them harshly for misusing a legally owned firearm.
That doesn't seem like a contradiction to you?
-
wrag, could you define gun control.
Most countries, including the USA has one form of it or another.
However, the USA seperates from the western world with a much more liberal gun control. As well as higher crime rate and more death by firearms.
And BTW, the 13 million jews were not that many, and most of them were not from Germany, but occupied countries defeated in war.
NIce to see how straight facts can be...well, facts are facts.
-
wrag, could you define gun control.
Most countries, including the USA has one form of it or another.
As well as higher crime rate
Higher crime rate than who?
-
In which country are guns completely banned?
The Vatican maybe?
Just to get rid of the misunderstanding. . . .
-
Shooting in Butte , Montana
Shotgun preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders:
Butte, Montana November 5, 2007
Two illegal aliens, Raphael Resides, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.
It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resides was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resides was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.
Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants......and she wins, she is still alive.
Now that is Gun Control !
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
-
Where I live the Mosberg is quite legal. However the handgun isn't :D
-
WTG Mossberg girl! I will be glad when we finally expel these 30,000,000 criminals that have invaded our country.
EDIT: I just read the snopes thing too, i usually go there FIRST before kneejerk replying to posts like this but the last part of my post still stands!
-
Alas, an urban legend according to Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp
But, they did offer up this smiliar story:
http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou061228_ac_crosbyshooting.547846d3.html
Charon
-
Darn...sorry guys it was and E-mail sent by a gun loving friend...sorry.......I need to get
my storys from NRA Magazines next time...I know they are correct.
-
Shooting in Butte , Montana
Shotgun preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders:
Butte, Montana November 5, 2007
Two illegal aliens, Raphael Resides, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.
It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resides was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resides was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.
Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants......and she wins, she is still alive.
Now that is Gun Control !
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
good for her!!!!!
thisis what i was talkling about in the other thread about keeping yourself current and practiced.....if not for her father's help, and her skill, this oor girl could've ended up dead.....but instead, 2 illegals that deserved it are..
thanks for posting!!
BTW......your icon thingy to the left......downright scary and disturbing :rofl
-
good for her!!!!!
thisis what i was talkling about in the other thread about keeping yourself current and practiced.....if not for her father's help, and her skill, this oor girl could've ended up dead.....but instead, 2 illegals that deserved it are..
thanks for posting!!
BTW......your icon thingy to the left......downright scary and disturbing :rofl
Read up, it got snopesified.
-
Yes it got snoopifyed but there are many storys like these...real ones....I will share a few soon!! :aok
-
wrag, could you define gun control.
Most countries, including the USA has one form of it or another.
However, the USA seperates from the western world with a much more liberal gun control. As well as higher crime rate and more death by firearms.
And BTW, the 13 million jews were not that many, and most of them were not from Germany, but occupied countries defeated in war.
NIce to see how straight facts can be...well, facts are facts.
So I must ask some questions here.........
You're not a dense person right?
You do understand the POINT of the article?
You're not deliberately trying to be OBTUSE?
As to who they were (Jews) it actually matters what country they were in at the time?
It also seems to be a point with you somehow that 13 million was enough to upset you and just 1 million somehow isn't?
As to gun control?
What? Are you saying it has NOT been discussed on the board enough that you lack understanding of where many stand on the issue?
Facts are facts?
The issue isn't so much the high numbers of people that have been KILLED by their own GOVERNMENTS but that they were FIRST DISARMED!
You gonna bring in the U.N. now? Before you do lets look at the Belgian Congo FIRST and how those people successfully defended themselves against their attackers and then the U.N. stepped in DISARMED them and then departed LEAVING them at the mercy of their attackers.
SURPRISE they no longer had the means to defend themselves and were KILLED...........
Perhaps MURDERED would be a better word?
The issue?
DISARMED BEFORE THEY WERE MURDERED BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT?
Does that mean anything to you?
-
I don't have the link anymore but think it was by Susan Gaita Hupp?
She later went on to political office, think in Texas.
YOU KNOW how she voted on firearms issues!
IIRC she was in a cafe with her family having dinner.
Some crazy rammed the cafe and then got out went inside and started shooting people.
She lost both her parents there.
She was OBEYING the law, she had a permit but no one was allowed to carry in a restaurant or such places and her firearm was in her vehicle.
She was VERY angry with the politicians there after. I think to some degree she blamed the politicians and their laws for the needless loss of her parents and the lives of others.
I meant the link to the speech where Obama made the statement that is referenced in the article you posted.
-
Read up, it got snopesified.
uumm.....whoops?
-
Hey, if anyone tries to light a cigarette around me I'll shoot it out of their damn mouth. The only smoking I like is the smoking from my gun. :mad:
So your saying it's alright to have/use the "choice" to have a gun but not me a a cigarette? Once again it's about being a responsible owner/user. I don't smoke around people that object and i would expect you would have the courtesy to respect my right to smoke if i want, the same as i respect yours to own a gun. It's that type of attitude your displaying that has become the norm, i want "MY" freedom of choice but no on elses! You don't like cigarettes, fine don't smoke them, but don't get upset when someone hates your gun and wants to take it away. Fair is fair after all and you don't really need that "choice" to have a gun. Why? Because someone doesn't like it that's why.
-
I found this part VERY INTERESTING......
"Here are eight factoids I found that also cause backwards little old me to clutch my wood and metal friend called the gun:
1. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
2. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
3. Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
4. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
5. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
8. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million."
That many dead due to.........................
Many of these places were oppressed by their regimes BEFORE the "gun control" laws so i always find the references to these nations abit amusing every time they are brought up. Ofcourse these nations do not want their people to have guns. I would think very hard before using these nations as reference to anyting, unless you want the US to be looked at as similar to these places.
-
So I must ask some questions here.........
You're not a dense person right?
You do understand the POINT of the article?
What do you think of the US disarming Iraqi civilians then?
I'm sorry wrag, sticking to your guns on that quote makes you look like a squeeling pro-gun freak as bad as the antigun people. In most of those examples the general population wouldn't have been able to afford guns, and any resistance would've been meagre and disorganized at the most. Many went peacefully because they had no idea what was coming. Gun ownership would've made neglible difference.
The problem with the fanatical antigun-control people like yourself in the USA is that you constantly seek to use overseas comparisons for your argument. However the USA is such a unique situation that it just doesn't make sense to compare.
Take New Zealand, we have gun control laws, we have a relatively high gun ownership rate (only 1/3rd of the USA though), and an extremely low gun crime rate (especially underlined given reported gun crimes include 'fakes' and unconfirmed reports). Would our system work in the USA? No. Because we have a different culture.
So before you start mouthing off totally irrelevent and obfuscated facts think twice.
-
Yes it got snoopifyed but there are many storys like these...real ones....I will share a few soon!! :aok
and snopes will be waiting :)
-
Something that arrived in your email wasn't true?! Weird.
-
Jackal, I'm a gun owner who believes that if our Government allows unstable delusional old hippie revolutionaries to own firearms- say, someone like me, for instance- then we're in deep doo doo.
So called old delusional hippies of the time period are the ones who started this country.
Also the government is supposed to be by the people, for the people. That gets forgotten a lot.
Without private gun ownership you will come up with government over the people.....total government.
If all else fails and things get too totalitarian my state can just bail from the system. We`re not in legally anyway. :)
-
Where I live the Mosberg is quite legal. However the handgun isn't
Must suck to be you.
:rofl
-
Sorry, not going to get dragged into another gun debate.
You seem to think that your laws, which are akin to shutting the door after the horse has bolted, are better than ours. Fine. Far be it for me to criticise a country's laws that are not my own. (Doesn't seem to be a problem for you guys to do so though)
-
Toad mate, you're kinda aruging semantics here. A law preventing gun ownership would certainly not be obeyed more than a law preventing gun usage.....however, being caught with a firearm means what has happened is you've been caught with a firearm, no real harm done. Being caught using a firearm means some poor sod is either dead or has a very large hole in him.
And besides, you don't seriously think that Bermuda doesn't also have laws detailing punishments for those not only having an illegal firearm but using it as well do you?
Your point (and please correct me if I've missed something here cos even though we speak the same language us Brits misunderstand you lads all the time) seems to be that if Bermudians will obey a law preventing gun ownership then they'll also obey a law preventing firearm usage......well they do already, they obey both (well most of em do anyway). So what difference would doing away with the gun ownership law make when you're living in a country with no sport shooting heritage, nothing to hunt and not really any huge reason to need a defence against gun toting criminals cos they're few and far between.........
Curval's point seems to be that if firearms were legal there then the criminal element would find it (slightly) easier to get em in the first place and thereby create a reason for law abiding citizens to need a firearm deterent. At present they don't.
Right here right now I'm in agreement with Curv but I'm always open to suggestion provided we can all be nice and friendly and not start accusing each other of not being able to read.
Ahem.
-
What do you think of the US disarming Iraqi civilians then?
IIRC, each family was allowed to keep an AK-47. Is that really disarming them?
Would our system work in the USA? No. Because we have a different culture.
And that friends, sums up the effectiveness of gun laws. The laws are as effective as the culture allows. It's why England has had a basically stable gun crime rate despite ever increasing amounts of gun regulation. It's not the laws; it's the people/culture that keep the rate low, the result of a 90+% homogeneous society.
-
Sorry, not going to get dragged into another gun debate.
I don't blame you Curval. If you can't admit the obvious, you might as well bolt the thread.
Clearly, if you believe that laws that deal out harsh penalties for possession are the reason Bermuda has a low gun crime rate then it follows that if guns were legal in Bermuda, laws that deal out harsh penalties for criminal use would preserve your low gun crime rate.
But even though you can't admit it, you know that is just not true. It isn't the LAWS that keep Bermudian gun crime low, it's your societal mores.
I absolutely don't care about Bermudian gun law; it doesn't affect me in the least. I think we might as well be honest about it though.
It's not the laws... you know it and everyone knows it. It's your society.
As long as you can maintain tight control over access to your small island, all will be well.
You seem to think that your laws, which are akin to shutting the door after the horse has bolted, are better than ours. Fine. Far be it for me to criticise a country's laws that are not my own. (Doesn't seem to be a problem for you guys to do so though)
Note well that I have not criticized Bermudian gun laws. I just pointed out that the laws are not the reason for your low crime. You admit as much when you say laws with similar harsh penalties for criminal use of firearms would not provide the same result were guns legal in Bermuda.
Your laws would not work here for many reasons.
Our laws would not work in Bermuda for many reasons.
The salient reason in both cases is that the underlying culture/society really determines the amount of gun crime, not the gun laws on the books.
-
Yeah I thought the only disarming we were doing over in Iraq was the odd RPG, and 80mm mortar system. We're letting them keep the small arms for the most part, unless they're shooting at our guys. Then we kill them and take the weapons.
-
What do you think of the US disarming Iraqi civilians then?
I'm sorry wrag, sticking to your guns on that quote makes you look like a squeeling pro-gun freak as bad as the antigun people. In most of those examples the general population wouldn't have been able to afford guns, and any resistance would've been meagre and disorganized at the most. Many went peacefully because they had no idea what was coming. Gun ownership would've made neglible difference.
The problem with the fanatical antigun-control people like yourself in the USA is that you constantly seek to use overseas comparisons for your argument. However the USA is such a unique situation that it just doesn't make sense to compare.
Take New Zealand, we have gun control laws, we have a relatively high gun ownership rate (only 1/3rd of the USA though), and an extremely low gun crime rate (especially underlined given reported gun crimes include 'fakes' and unconfirmed reports). Would our system work in the USA? No. Because we have a different culture.
So before you start mouthing off totally irrelevent and obfuscated facts think twice.
Don't be sorry PLEASE!
Cause I must say I don't believe you are.
As to obfuscating.......
Couldn't afford guns?
IMHO that seems more like obfuscation then what I put forward.
Squeeling pro-gun freak?
Because I believe in the RIGHT of self-defense?
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state." ~~ George Mason, Virginia Ratification Convention, 1788
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." - James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, 1896
Meager?
Took only what? A few jews with handguns to START in Warsaw was it?
"There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people had not been ‘brainwashed’ about gun ownership and they had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made tulips out of the Nazi's." ~~ Theodore Haas, former prisoner of the infamous Dachau prisoner concentration camp.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."~~Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942
Or is this more toward your beliefs?
"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."~~Nikita Khrushchev
"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person."~~Vladimir Lenin
"There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual."~~ Benito Mussolini
"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual"~~Adolph Hitler
"At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good."~~Ted Kennedy
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."~~Hillary Clinton, 1993
Many of you are well enough off that... the tax cuts may have helped you... We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, San Francisco, June 28, 2004 ~ or...
"...from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx, 19th Century
Yep guess that stuff is just irrelevant right?
None of it happened or if it did it doesn't matter?
History has shown it is REPEATED over and over but that means nothing either?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.” —Giordano Bruno
GUN CONTROL: "The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms." -- libertarian U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), "Gun Control on the Back Burner," Nov. 6, 2006.
Oh well................
-
Swoop, I think the point is as I just posted.
It's not the laws, it's the society that determines the amount of gun crime.
To a certain extent, Bermuda is a Disneyland. I think that explains a lot about their level of crime in toto.
-
I'd prefer to live in Disneyland than Faluja.
But anyway, not to make a point but just to provide you and Lazs with some interesting reading: Have a look at www.fmft.net it's a blog by a British firearms advocate, very good stuff and covers a lot of the oddities and stupidity of British law, along with lots of other stuff like "on this day in history so-and-so was awarded the VC for this...." and articles on firearms owned and operated by this fella.
Remember that post I put up months ago about the lad who had built his own bowling ball firing cannon? That was stolen from FMFT.
-
Well, who wouldn't prefer Disneyland to Falujah? Let's see... artificial playground dedicated to fulfilling your every whim as compared to a third world toejamehole. Hmmmmmmm... tough decision! :)
Wonder how Disneyland would be if they let everyone in who wanted to come in, no restrictions/no charge. How long would it be a paradise?
Will check out the link, sounds interesting.
-
swoop and curval.. I do get your point.. you are saying that no guns at all.. or very little.. no gun problem or.. very little.
Where your reasoning all goes wrong is when you first, take a look at the make up of the country in question.. just as no gun law has ever reduced crime here.. no gun law in your country has every decreased it there.. your homicide rate was the same before you made all your gun laws.. in both your countries the laws were not made because of a mounting crime wave of gun murders.. they were driven by fear and panic over one or two incidents used by the government to impose these laws.. some slaughter in england and a government hack killed on curvals playland. The laws didn't reduce homicides.. which were never anything to get all shook up about in the first place.. you gave up your rights for nothing.
Second.. dead is dead.. your homicide rate didn't change.. ours hasn't either except.. with some of our laws on guns getting more lax.. we have seen a lowering of our homicide rate.
last.. an interesting stat... while your burglary rate is twice as high as ours.. as is a lot of your other crime that could be prevented by armed citizens...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita
Your manslaughter rate is off the chart in such places as oz and norway where there is gun control.. ours doesn't even show on the top 25 to me.. dead is dead.. shot or the victim of manslaughter.. what is the difference.
also..if you are white in America vs white in your country.. you are less prone to die of some misadventure.. you may be more likely to be shot here but.. less likely to die of an "accident"
Here.. the culture is vibrant and multicultural.. that is why so many of you from other countries come here to live and... so few of us go to yours to live...
There is a price for vibrant multiculturalism and an economy of opportunity... and of course... the drug war... These things make some places for some of the population segments.. very dangerous.. it spills over a tad to the majority culture.. but.. the majority culture in America uses guns 1-3 million times a year to stop bad things happening to us.
They are more useful here than smoking laws.. more life saving than helmet laws.. save more lives than speed limits or seat belt laws... they are making us safe from the ones who are lawless and greedy..
Plus.. we don't trust our government.. and.. we simply can't and won't hide under our bed while we are being burglarized like you folk.
lazs
-
re: British law. I agree with you. 2 poxy incidents by maniacs and liberals countrywide scream for no guns. gee thanks. Read any British political blog you like and you'll see that the majority agree with you.
I want a gat! I think I may have mentioned this before......
re: Bermudian law. Can't comment, don't know anything about the incident mentioned.
However, I also think Toad has made an excellent point about the culture differences.
-
I find this article to be VERY interesting!
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/05/05/caution!_you_are_about_to_enter_a_gun _free_zone?page=full&comments=true
-
WELL hmmmm
Seems cameras aren't doin it either?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1
-
I disagree with you about the reliability of semi-autos Laz. I have a Glock 30 that I bought in 2000, it has had over 7,000 rounds though it of all types of .45 ammo and it has yet to have a failure to feed, failure to extract or failure to fire. It goes boom every time. I have left it loaded for over a year and never had a problem.
The firearms and magazines that are being produced today are very reliable. Certain brands of firearms have earned the reputation of having outstanding reliability. Glock and Sig Sauer are two that come mind. I estimate that those two brands of firearms make up somewhere around the 70% of firearms carried by law enforcement officers in the United States. That says a lot about those types of firearms.
I love my wheel gun. I have my model 67 being customized as we speak (action and trigger work). However on the streets of today a wheel gun just will not cut it. When bad guys are packing AK47s, SKS's and every other bottom shelf firearm they can get their hand on, a six shot .357 just is not going to be equal.
Now I am all for training. I believe there is no better tool to persons survival in a shooting than solid training. However, there comes a point were technology comes into play. When combat evolves. The days of wheel guns running the show are over. They now have to take a back seat to semi-autos. As semi-autos have proven themselves reliable enough for front line service.
This could not have been said twenty years ago. It can be said today. Twenty years ago we would not be having the conversation, but if we were I would be in full agreement with you. Today sitting here now, I can not. Even so to each is his own and my own comes in the form of a twelve round Sig P229.
-
BBBB....Just out of curiosity....
How is your 12 round sig gonna be any better against a bad guy with an AK 47 that is 75 yards away and using a car door or newspaper stand for cover than my 6 shot 44 mag revolver?
You did say you needed a semi auto pistol of high capacity because the bad guys had AK 47's right?
How is it gonna do any better against say.. a level one vest?
How do you forsee.. what situation.. will it be a big advantage to you? I am not talking being in a military conflict or even being a cop.. although.. it is hard for me to imagine where that 45 is gonna do better than 6 shots from a 44 or maybe 7 or eight from a .357 revolver.
But.. as you say.. it is really about what you are comfortable with and.. as anyone will tell you.. semi autos can kick butt at shooting at plates and such.
I like my 45 Kimber.. I trust it. to an extent. I trust my revolvers more but.. the kimber aint half bad..
Now, if we are talking about leagues of the walking dead.. now.. I might want something with a lot of capacity that loads quick and don't kick much. even a nine will pop a zombie skull.
lazs
-
BBBB....Just out of curiosity....
How is your 12 round sig gonna be any better against a bad guy with an AK 47 that is 75 yards away and using a car door or newspaper stand for cover than my 6 shot 44 mag revolver?
You did say you needed a semi auto pistol of high capacity because the bad guys had AK 47's right?
How is it gonna do any better against say.. a level one vest?
How do you forsee.. what situation.. will it be a big advantage to you? I am not talking being in a military conflict or even being a cop.. although.. it is hard for me to imagine where that 45 is gonna do better than 6 shots from a 44 or maybe 7 or eight from a .357 revolver.
But.. as you say.. it is really about what you are comfortable with and.. as anyone will tell you.. semi autos can kick butt at shooting at plates and such.
I like my 45 Kimber.. I trust it. to an extent. I trust my revolvers more but.. the kimber aint half bad..
Now, if we are talking about leagues of the walking dead.. now.. I might want something with a lot of capacity that loads quick and don't kick much. even a nine will pop a zombie skull.
lazs
You will be scared, and probably already dead from the AK, but if you stay alive long enough, your hands will be shaking, your mouth will go dry, and you will not be able to hit a target at 75 yards due to the adrenalin pounding through your veins while trying to defend yourself with a revolver. At 75 yards, any handgun is pretty close to useless in a gun fight, you know, the kind where someone is actually shooting back at you, not a defenseless piece of paper hanging still from a clip.
IF, and I say if, you manage to fire off your six rounds, no doubt the opponent will be still up and hammering away at you. At that point, you will find your hands shaking so bad you will find it almost impossible to reload the revolver as it is a slower and clumsy weapon to reload.
The advantage the semi-auto would have here would be the ability to continue to shoot past the six round limit of the revolver, and quickly reload. You would then possibly have a chance to keep the bad guys head down some while waiting for someone smart enough to carry a rifle to come along and save you.
If you really love the .44, buy a Desert Eagle. It's a fun gun to shoot.
-
Just call the cops, thats their job to prevent crime, FYI there are millions and millions of guns in the US, hundreds of thousands if not millions of m-16 type aks uzis etc... all added up. America is a fortress 1/4 people own a gun and the average gun owner owns several. Yet somehow each day the guns dont gain intelligence and go off and bang bang.
-
Swoop, I think the point is as I just posted.
It's not the laws, it's the society that determines the amount of gun crime.
To a certain extent, Bermuda is a Disneyland. I think that explains a lot about their level of crime in toto.
It would SEEM that someone agreed with you LONG before you were born.....
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
-
dago.. well.. I guess you just brought up another question.. if you are so scared that you can't even function and handguns are just a waste of time in a gun fight..
Then what difference does it make which kind you have? If you are shaking like a leaf.. what difference if you have more rounds to spray around other than to increase the possibility of injuring bystanders?
Speedloaders for revolvers are pretty good these days to BTW. they even make em for the 7 and 8 shot .357 revolvers..
I don't recall the sensations you talk about when I got shot at but. maybe I hadn't read enough yet.
The advantage I see for a revolver is a situation where someone is doing random killing and you have taken cover. he may have some kind of body armor or light cover.. I see taking the shot while he is shooting in another direction.
I don't think the cops were too impressed with the semi autos that they were spraying at the LA bank robbers. I would rather have had an old ruger single action revolver in 44 mag.
Now maybe you can tell me a situation where a semi auto will save the day for a civilian over a revolver. Missed the first six shots at 7 yards???? the guy is just angry and keeps coming after six seven or eight shots shots? 7 guys attack at once at close range?
You are attacked by dinner plates?
What situation? Is a 1911 worthless because it only holds 8 rounds like a lot of .357 revolvers?
lazs
-
I don't recall the sensations you talk about when I got shot at but. maybe I hadn't read enough yet.
lazs
:lol :aok Sorry that's just funny to me. Dago, how many times exactly have you been shot at?
-
You will be scared, and probably already dead from the AK, but if you stay alive long enough, your hands will be shaking, your mouth will go dry, and you will not be able to hit a target at 75 yards due to the adrenalin pounding through your veins while trying to defend yourself with a revolver.
You don`t have time to register all of that.
You more than likely will get tunnel vision though and become more focused than you have ever been in your life......................... ......also time seems to stand still.
-
:lol :aok Sorry that's just funny to me. Dago, how many times exactly have you been shot at?
Want a laugh, consider that lazs previously told me he hasn't been shot at and has never been in a gunfight.
I never have been shot at, never pretended I did. I do know I have read about people (cops, soldiers) reactions to being shot at, especially for the first time, and I can't recall any of them describing themselves as cool, calm and doing the Dirty Harry imitation that lazs seems confident he would portray.
That is the difference between us, I don't watch a movie and pretend I would be a calm badass, grimacing and growling "go ahead, make my day".
Now Steve, stop acting like a twerp with your "yeah yeah, what he said" juvenile crap.
-
You don`t have time to register all of that.
You more than likely will get tunnel vision though and become more focused than you have ever been in your life......................... ......also time seems to stand still.
That's what I recall from the one time we got shot at with small arms during Desert Storm. We had a couple dozen AK's firing at us. Had a round come through the windshield of my HEMTT and miss my left knee by about 2-3 inches. I was standing on the passenger seat manning my M-60 on the roof mount. The fight only lasted a couple of minutes but it felt like hours. It seemed like I could almost see the rounds going downrange from my weapon as I fired.
I didn't start shaking until after it was over. Pissed my pants sometime during the fight and didn't even know it. I was too focused on engaging targets. I was a little embarassed about it until I saw a couple of the other guys in the same situation. We all just kinda laughed at each other, changed drawers and continued the mission.
Point is if your properly trained and prepared, mentally and physically, when the crap hits the fan, you just do what has to be done. You don't get scared until later.
-
That's what I recall from the one time we got shot at with small arms during Desert Storm. We had a couple dozen AK's firing at us. Had a round come through the windshield of my HEMTT and miss my left knee by about 2-3 inches. I was standing on the passenger seat manning my M-60 on the roof mount. The fight only lasted a couple of minutes but it felt like hours. It seemed like I could almost see the rounds going downrange from my weapon as I fired.
I didn't start shaking until after it was over. Pissed my pants sometime during the fight and didn't even know it. I was too focused on engaging targets. I was a little embarassed about it until I saw a couple of the other guys in the same situation. We all just kinda laughed at each other, changed drawers and continued the mission.
Point is if your properly trained and prepared, mentally and physically, when the crap hits the fan, you just do what has to be done. You don't get scared until later.
And you have hit the nail on the head, you were trained, you were prepared and ready. Beyond the professional military, most will never get close to that state. Ever see the car camera footage of cops when someone shot at them from? Most often they shoot like wild emptying their guns from close range and most of the rounds, (if not all) miss. These are guys who train and qualify with the weapon they carry, and go into situations knowing this could happen, and they return "panic fire".
-
Yeah I was a "trained" National Guardsman at the ripe old age of 19. I had been to the range maybe 12 times with an M-16 prior to that and had only fired an M-60 3 times before that. Having been "trained" by the Army had little to do with it. I grew up with guns. I knew how to use them long before I joined the Army.
What I consider to be "real" weapons training is nothing more than practicing often with the weapons you have and knowing how to operate them in any condition, be it at night, in the rain, in the cold with gloves on, whatever. People that practice with their weapons will be able to use them in the heat of the moment without fail because when all else fails that weapon will be the ONE thing they have complete control over.
-
Yeah I was a "trained" National Guardsman at the ripe old age of 19. I had been to the range maybe 12 times with an M-16 prior to that and had only fired an M-60 3 times before that. Having been "trained" by the Army had little to do with it. I grew up with guns. I knew how to use them long before I joined the Army.
What I consider to be "real" weapons training is nothing more than practicing often with the weapons you have and knowing how to operate them in any condition, be it at night, in the rain, in the cold with gloves on, whatever. People that practice with their weapons will be able to use them in the heat of the moment without fail because when all else fails that weapon will be the ONE thing they have complete control over.
Thing is Hornet there is a big difference between, "just going to the range", and, "advanced combat training". A big difference.
And "training" is the key to survival. Of all the shooting incidents Ive seen, been personally involved in, or have heard 1st hand accounts of, not one of them was lost due to the amount of bullets in the guns. When I visit the "Officers Down" webpage and look down the list of guys from my Dept. on it, I see a litany of poor tactical decisions made. The biggest of which is young guys rushing in to make the pinch or thinking they can handle something they couldnt. I cant think of one guy killed due to a lack of bullets in a wheelgun.
And there is no substitute for high quality training.
-
Thing is Hornet there is a big difference between, "just going to the range", and, "advanced combat training". A big difference.
And "training" is the key to survival. Of all the shooting incidents Ive seen, been personally involved in, or have heard 1st hand accounts of, not one of them was lost due to the amount of bullets in the guns. When I visit the "Officers Down" webpage and look down the list of guys from my Dept. on it, I see a litany of poor tactical decisions made. The biggest of which is young guys rushing in to make the pinch or thinking they can handle something they couldnt. I cant think of one guy killed due to a lack of bullets in a wheelgun.
And there is no substitute for high quality training.
These aren't hard to find:
Bill Bratton is another famous police chief who has said things that make gun rights advocates grit their teeth, but always made sure his officers were well armed. When he took over the New York City Transit Authority Police, he defied city authorities and armed them all with Glock 19 pistols and 9mm JHP ammo to give them parity with the punks they faced on the street--all at a time when the NYPD still restricted its personnel to six-shot .38 revolvers with non-hollowpoint ammo. Later, a certain police commissioner was forced by union demands to authorize 9mm autos for NYPD, but insisted they have only ten-round magazines. When Bratton replaced him as head of the nation's largest police force. he inherited that situation.
About that time, a young policewoman named Theresa Beckles got into an off-duty gunfight. She shot down three armed robbers with her five-shot S&W .38, but ran out of ammo and was pistol-whipped by a wounded thug who was still up and running. This gave Bratton the excuse to upgrade the entire department to 15-round mags, without seeming to call his predecessor an idiot. Thai remains the legacy of NYPD, now 30,000 strong since their absorption of Transit Authority and Port Authority, and they also got hollowpoints a few years ago. Today, as chief of the LAPD, Bratton made it one of his first acts to authorize Glock service pistols in 9mm, .40 and .45 to the 7,000 members of that department. It was the first time LAPD got the option of the .40 as a compromise between the issue Beretta 9mm and the optional DA .45. and the first time they had the option of a high capacity .45 ACP. Chief Bratton reportedly wears a Glock to work daily.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_169_28/ai_114475578 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_169_28/ai_114475578)
-
dago... I believe that I did tell you that a man was shot in the head while I was standing next to him. I drew and aimed at the guy next to him who was the bigger threat and reaching for a model 39 smith. the explosion and flash from three feet away looked like it was going off in my face. I had blood on me from the guy who was hit and he didn't seem hit at all. he was moving forward and the guy who shot was empty handed.. he had dropped the gun and looked shocked an had both hands up to defend his head.. the guy who was shot was swinging the 30-30 winchester and broke it over the shooter.. I had flinched sideways and drawn a super blackhawk that was stuck down in my belt mexican carry.
loud noise.. muzzle flash in my face blood splatter.. 30-30 stock breaking on shooter.. guy scrambling for m39.. all in a few seconds.
I coulda shot the guy going for the smith. less than 4 pounds of finger pressure.. My life woulda changed forever.. no way to cover the whole thing up or reason to. I thought about it. he really was no threat. in 2 seconds it was really all over but the cleanup. I knew that I could shoot the guy if he hadn't have stopped reaching for the gun. I really had no problem with that. I couldn't shoot someone who was no threat tho.
I have never been in the military or the police. I could never have shot anyone legally. everyone I knew was a biker and or drug dealer and criminal. We all carried guns and things happened. I am not a criminal now and not a drug user or dealer and am grateful for the change in my life. I did learn some things from back then tho.. things about myself and about people and stress and guns. You don't always have to shoot and you don't need anything fancy. You don't get scarred until you have time to get scarred.
As for your example of the 5 shot mouse gun... what department issued 5 shot 38 holster guns? you are most likely talking about a J frame smith hideout gun.
Oh yeah..the guy that got shot in the head? he carried a 3 inch scar going into his hairline till he died a couple of years ago. We took him to the hospital and told the guy he got hit with some metal while we were cutting up a junk car with a torch.. I think the doc only pretended to buy it to get us out of there. police came by the next day. no big deal.. they asked some questions and went on to other things.
lazs
-
dago... I believe that I did tell you that a man was shot in the head while I was standing next to him. I drew and aimed at the guy next to him who was the bigger threat and reaching for a model 39 smith. the explosion and flash from three feet away looked like it was going off in my face. I had blood on me from the guy who was hit and he didn't seem hit at all. he was moving forward and the guy who shot was empty handed.. he had dropped the gun and looked shocked an had both hands up to defend his head.. the guy who was shot was swinging the 30-30 winchester and broke it over the shooter.. I had flinched sideways and drawn a super blackhawk that was stuck down in my belt mexican carry.
loud noise.. muzzle flash in my face blood splatter.. 30-30 stock breaking on shooter.. guy scrambling for m39.. all in a few seconds.
I coulda shot the guy going for the smith. less than 4 pounds of finger pressure.. My life woulda changed forever.. no way to cover the whole thing up or reason to. I thought about it. he really was no threat. in 2 seconds it was really all over but the cleanup. I knew that I could shoot the guy if he hadn't have stopped reaching for the gun. I really had no problem with that. I couldn't shoot someone who was no threat tho.
I have never been in the military or the police. I could never have shot anyone legally. everyone I knew was a biker and or drug dealer and criminal. We all carried guns and things happened. I am not a criminal now and not a drug user or dealer and am grateful for the change in my life. I did learn some things from back then tho.. things about myself and about people and stress and guns. You don't always have to shoot and you don't need anything fancy. You don't get scarred until you have time to get scarred.
As for your example of the 5 shot mouse gun... what department issued 5 shot 38 holster guns? you are most likely talking about a J frame smith hideout gun.
Oh yeah..the guy that got shot in the head? he carried a 3 inch scar going into his hairline till he died a couple of years ago. We took him to the hospital and told the guy he got hit with some metal while we were cutting up a junk car with a torch.. I think the doc only pretended to buy it to get us out of there. police came by the next day. no big deal.. they asked some questions and went on to other things.
lazs
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol This whole thing just took a strange turn...So our buddy Laz, the reformed criminal, almost was involved in a shooting, when he almost shot a guy, who almost killed another guy. Then they almost all got in trouble because they took him to the hospital, but then they lied and the doctor bought it..did I miss anything? Ohh man, that is classic. Laz, it is a good thing you kept that pen knife in your butt crack back then too huh? It probably got you out of more than a few "tight spots".
If this story is real, please let me rephrase it without all the extra jazz; You were standing next to a guy who was grazed by a bullet when a gun went off handled by a guy who you knew was not a threat before hand. The flash blinded you, the sound stunned your eardrums. You may have grabbed your gun, but I have a feeling you were most likely grabbing your nuts to make sure they were both present and accounted for.
The fact you didn't shoot a guy who had an AD and accentually grazed another one of your friends tells me dick about how you would handle yourself when presented with a real threat...That is the critical difference between your hard core biker story and an actual shooting where one person is trying to kill another. I have been around more than a few ADs in my life time and guess what..I didn't react nether. That is why they are called Accidental Discharges and not; "Assault's on everyone around that requires everyone around to react as as if it was a real shooting", it doesn't quite roll off the tongue as well as AD does. However, if you have anymore stories about when you used to ride with the Hells Angels, I am all ears. I need a good laugh again.
-
well.. seemed real enough to me. I would ask you about your experience BBBB. The guy who was shot was the pres of the banshees. a known sucker puncher and he was mad. He grabbed a 30-30.. He told me latter that he was just gonna hit the guy with it. I see no reason to not believe him.. known him most of my life. the guy with the 38 was his intended victim and was sitting on the edge of the bed.. the guy with the 38 shot. I didn't even see him pull out the gun.. I was standing next to the guy who got shot. It looked like the damn thing went off in my face.
I am almost certain it was not accidental except for maybe it went off before he wanted it to. I just moved to the side and drew. The last guy made a half hearted attempt to get out his model 39 or 59 or whatever it was.
I coulda shot him and we coulda called the cops and I would have got off from the whole thing. I didn't because their was no reason to. I think that I made the right decision. It would have changed my life in a not so good way. The guy who got shot didn't even act like he was hurt till after it was all over and then he acted more mad than anything. We came up with the whole cutting up a car in the middle of the night BS probly 30 minutes later.. after the other guys had left. It was lame as could be but..
Who cares? the hospital seemed willing to just get us out of there and the cops the next day didn't buy it at all but so what?
I don't care what it proves to you. The whole thing took one hell of a lot less time to happen than to explain it. My version is a lot less embelished than some of the versions I have heard of the same story tho later... the one girl in the room screamed and fell on the floor and she tells the story like it was the shootout at the OK corral. The guy who got shot makes it sound like he had to stop me from killing everyone. One of the guys in the other room tells the story like he was in the room with us. All I got out of the whole thing was that I had a gun pointed at someone who I coulda shot and got away with it. I didn't and I am glad.
It wasn't a gunfight maybe but it was a tense moment that could have been a lot worse. It felt like a damn gunfight at the time tho. The word accident never came up.
lazs
-
Dago I never said an upgrade to high cap autos was a "bad thing" and I never advocated wheelguns over autos either.
I just said the argument you "need more bullets" is over-rated and is far lower on the priority list them most people think.
For every "5 shot snubbie" disaster story you can come up with I bet I can cook up 5 "jammed autos" stories. And either way I'd still say the real key to survival is more of what you have between your ears then what kinda gun you have on your side.
We had a girl empty 14 shots at an assailant from a car length away and the only thing she hit was the eye of some poor schmuck driving a block away from the scene. The BG just beat her up ,luckily, when she "ran out of bullets" and she ended up surviving tho the lawsuit is pending.
If Im an advocate of anything its to always carry two guns. Ive never once only carried one gun while OD and dont very often only carry one while off duty.
If you want to be "well armed" in today's world you should have a long gun on you. If these big city Dept.s were truly concerned about us then a long gun would be in every squad car. Unfortunately the stupid citizenry would have fits and that makes these Mutt Politicians go weak in the bowels.
-
Who cares? the hospital seemed willing to just get us out of there and the cops the next day didn't buy it at all but so what?
In a lot of situations back in the day a gun shot was not reported by a lot of doctors . It certainly didn`t hurt matters any if you knew the doc also. :)
-
A quicky cut `n paste
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge blocks Philadelphia ban on assault weapons
Tue Jun 3, 2008 7:55pm EDT
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Philadelphia judge struck down city ordinances banning assault weapons and limiting handgun purchases on Tuesday, in a blow to the city's attempts to make gun laws separately from the state.
Pennsylvania state lawmakers, influenced by a strong rural gun lobby, have repeatedly rejected gun-control proposals from Philadelphia, one of the most violent cities in the United States.
Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas said in a brief ruling that the city should be permanently prevented from enforcing the ordinances passed unanimously by the city council in April.
The ruling made permanent a temporary injunction and came in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association, which argued that only the state legislature has a right to set gun laws.
NRA attorney C. Scott Shields called the decision a "huge victory" for gun-rights advocates. "The assault weapons ban and one-gun-a-month were the meat and potatoes of these ordinances," he said.
The city is expected to appeal the decision.
Judge Greenspan denied a challenge by the NRA to three other ordinances. Those allow judges to remove guns from people declared to be a risk to themselves or others; prevent people under protection-from-abuse orders from owning guns, and require gun owners to report the loss or theft of a gun to police within 24 hours.
-
rich.. I think you have said it about how it is. A good person with a lot of ammo in a mag is probly better off than a good person with less ammo but.. for the most part.. none of us really need all that ammo. It matters not if you use 4 shots from an auto or a revolver to stop a fight and it matters not if you miss 14 times with a semi auto or miss 6 times with a revolver.
Semi autos are a lot better than they ever were.. the ammo is better.. jams are not near as frequent. Semi autos are more accurate than they used to be.. they are better guns than they used to be. Revolvers are better too tho and what they did back then.. they can still do today only better. They are lighter and more powerful with an even wider choice of ammo.
lazs
-
jackal.. that is great news except the last part.. If I read it right, they are saying if you are in danger you can't own a gun? what does "under protection" mean" restraining order? the last, the part about reporting stolen guns... It is a back door way to make you lose your rights. How do you even know if a gun has been stolen within 24 hours in some cases? Do you go through your guns every 24 hours and take inventory? what if you come home from vacation to find your safe broken into?
Oh.. on the hospital thing.. someone at the little hospital must have called the cops at some point cause the sheriffs were there the next day (bout 5 hours later).
lazs
-
jackal.. that is great news except the last part.. If I read it right, they are saying if you are in danger you can't own a gun? what does "under protection" mean" restraining order?
That`s about the same way I read it. I`d like to know more about their definitions on this just out of curousity.
the last, the part about reporting stolen guns... It is a back door way to make you lose your rights. How do you even know if a gun has been stolen within 24 hours in some cases? Do you go through your guns every 24 hours and take inventory? what if you come home from vacation to find your safe broken into?
Yeah.....that is just lame in my book.
The part that really gets me is they claim Philly is one of the most violent cities in the U.S...........so some are trying to take the tools of protection away from the citizens. Like burning down the barn to get rid of the rats.
-
That`s about the same way I read it. I`d like to know more about their definitions on this just out of curousity.
Yeah.....that is just lame in my book.
The part that really gets me is they claim Philly is one of the most violent cities in the U.S...........so some are trying to take the tools of protection away from the citizens. Like burning down the barn to get rid of the rats.
That is pretty much the same stupid argument anti-gun groups have been shouting for years. If there isn't any guns then their wouldn't be any crime.. doesn't make much sense to me, but that is their way of thinking.
-
That is pretty much the same stupid argument anti-gun groups have been shouting for years. If there isn't any guns then their wouldn't be any crime.. doesn't make much sense to me, but that is their way of thinking.
Well, sure! I mean, when we made booze illegal during prohibition, all drinking suddenly and permanently stopped.
Besides, they have gun free/ crime free England as a perfect example of how right they are. :rock
-
There are a lot of black people in Philly.
-
Well, sure! I mean, when we made booze illegal during prohibition, all drinking suddenly and permanently stopped.
Absolutely. :D
-
Much drinking stopped, and the Mafia was born :D
-
the drinking never stopped and small time thugs became organized which became big big big business. the phenomenon wasn't just within the italian immigrant community either they were simply the most visible. the 1960 presidential election was won through votes purchased by joseph kennedy senior with his earnings from his participation in the illicit alcohol smuggling trade.
-
Much drinking stopped, and the Mafia was born :D
and the Kennedys got rich
-
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone
911 government sponserd dial-a-prayer
-
So.....here I sit in total confusion.
After getting the Argentine that I bought to sporterize, now I`m not so sure. It`s such a perfect specimen I hate to change it. It`s also the long barreled version. All matching numbers, great condition. But......I ........need......that.....sc ope. :)
Hehe. Did get a great deal on some reloadable ammo. Soft points for 12 bucks a box. :)
-
Well. I am one of the approx 95% of eartlings that happen to be living outside the USA.
So, forgive me for being completely in the dark about the prohibition putting Kennedy on to the throne.
After all, I thought the USA was a country of democracy, including free elections.
Now, where am I wrong here?
-
12 bucks a box is not toooooo bad but.. You can buy brass and slugs and powder and primer and come out one helluva lot better. With military rifles I shoot as much cheap surplus stuff as I can and reload the brass that will reload (boxer) and throw away the rest.
The bonus with reloads is that you don't have the old corrosive primers to worry about. Makes cleaning not quite so desperate and worrisome.
lazs
-
With military rifles I shoot as much cheap surplus stuff as I can and reload the brass that will reload (boxer) and throw away the rest.
Hehe. Yeah, surp is fine if you are just punching paper or shooting just for fun, but............when the target is 300-400 lbs. of muscle and tusk , misfires are not the best option. ;)
-
Hehe. Yeah, surp is fine if you are just punching paper or shooting just for fun, but............when the target is 300-400 lbs. of muscle and tusk , misfires are not the best option.
I just bought 4000 rounds of 9.45x39 at about 10 cents per round. A hell of a deal. In fact, about the only surplus ammo deal around today. Russian military surplus with mildly corrosive primers.
I then had to buy a rifle to go with it. Got a nice (very, very nice) 1989 Polish Tantal and a replacement fixed stock to swap out for the wire folding stock. There's one on this page about half way down: http://www.classicarms.us/
Wouldn't go looking for anything that is 300-400 lbs. of muscle and tusk with a 5.45x39 round though, handload, commerical or milsurp :)
Charon
-
Wouldn't go looking for anything that is 300-400 lbs. of muscle and tusk with a 5.45x39 round though, handload, commerical or milsurp :)
Charon
Hehe. It`s good to get the blood pumping.
In this area we have some of the best wild hog hunting , bar none.
Around the lake and the surrounding areas we have some pretty wild and wooly bottom lands.
Some of these hogs family trees would go back for quite a few generations.
Some are even mixed with Russian stock way back down the line.
Had a guy call me recently and told me to watch an episode of Monster Quest on the boob tube that night.
Sure enough they had an episode on the wild hogs in this area and some foreign land up north called "Oklahoma". ;)
-
BOOM.
Good hog :D
-
shot a 200 lb one in Northern California with a 44 mag from a super blackhawk revolver... 260 grain cast lead semi wadcutter with a lot of blue dot behind it. Guy with an ought six had made a low gut shot on it that really did nothing but make it mad... That 44 slug stopped it pretty good.
Lotsa guys around here handgun hunt em or at least carry a handgun for backup.
lazs
-
BOOM.
Good hog :D
:aok
Good in the skillet also. ;)
-
In this area we have some of the best wild hog hunting , bar none.
I've never been big into hunting, but hog hunting has had some appeal. I think my Enfield No. 5 would be perfect for that. Light, handy but with a powerful cartridge.
Charon
-
BTW, since this is a gun thread, we had some polar bear shootings in the last days. Came with drif-ice from Greenland.
Anyway, there were attempts to catch them alive, but failed. So, them being to dangerous to wander, - got shot.
An experienced boar hunter (and more) told me that if a Polar bear takes the leap on you, nothing less then a 30cal would penetrate. You would not be safe to drop him with a handgun, definately not a 9mm.
So I wonder, since the situation was being tackled by the police, and they just have 9mm Glocks and Mp3's (Possibly), they don't have the "stopping" or rather "penetrating" power to avoid injury if the bears had closed on them.
(They were trying to close in to 30m to shoot darts)
So, the question is, what of a handgun would do? .357? .44? 44 mag? or .45???????
BTW, I have shot a bull straight upwards between the eyes with a .22 magnum, and he walked away.
Caught him (poor guy :cry) for humanity with a normal .22. He dropped dead.
Not all absolute science, but wondering....good to know if you have a white teddy knocking IN the front door :D
-
So, the question is, what of a handgun would do? .357? .44? 44 mag? or .45?
Not an expert, but from what I've heard in a variety of similar discussion (a fairly common topic), you would be in mortal peril relying on a handgun against most brown or polar bears. Better than nothing, one would suppose, if you didn't want to pack a rifle on a hike, etc. and made a really well placed shot and got good bullet penetration with a heavy, non expanding round. Some even say that most regular .30 cal rifles are marginal, but they were used for many decades (a century or more perhaps) along with a variety of lesser calibers in bear country.
Again, not an expert but I don't know that you'll find many people who actively hunt a grizzly or polar bear with a handgun :)
Charon
-
The Greenlanders use 30-30.
I was once on boarhunting in Germany, we had a 30-06, and a .357 as an extra.
-
lots of polar bears have been killed with both a 357 and 44 mags. I have heard that polar bears are not particularly tough to kill. I would say that at close range a 44 mag is close enough in killing power to a thirty thirty to not really matter.
New rounds like the 454, 460, 480 and 500 are being chambered in handguns not much larger and heavier than 44 mag guns.
For me.. the 44 mag is the best all around handgun round with a good balance of manageable recoil and practical size firearm. All the bigger rounds are a bit too much in too unwieldy a gun and all the smaller rounds are just not quite good enough.
lazs
-
Went and did a little shooting with the Argentine and the semi house gun yesterday.
Handed the Argentine to the wife, she threw it up, BOOM....dead center bullseye.
The smile said it all. Back to shopping. :)
-
lots of polar bears have been killed with both a 357 and 44 mags. I have heard that polar bears are not particularly tough to kill. I would say that at close range a 44 mag is close enough in killing power to a thirty thirty to not really matter.
Lots of black bears have been killed easily with large caliber revolvers. Polar bears and brown bears have been killed with large caliber revolvers and by natives and other skilled woodsmen using rifles as light as 30-30 or even .223. But, especially with the pistol rounds you have no margin for error with the larger bears. As Chuck Hawk states:
Remember that bullet placement is absolutely crucial, so whatever handgun you choose for protection in the field, make sure that you can shoot it with great precision. You can't miss (or even score peripheral hits) fast enough to come out on top in a deadly encounter with a large predator!
http://www.chuckhawks.com/protection_field.htm
The pistol hunting stories with polars or brown bears you come across typically involve large magnum-level rifles as backup. Here's one account of a hunt against a brown bear with two hunters using .500 revolvers.
I trained my revolver at the bear and watched as my hunting partner lay on the ground in a firing position. I nodded my head to him and a second later, the blast of his .500 Smith & Wesson echoed against the distant hillsides.
The bear never flinched when the bullet hit him and it continued to get up. Immediately I fired my .500, the bullet striking the great bear center mass and, again, it never flinched.
We were about 20 yards from it and in a spot where we could be readily seen by the beast. In a blur we continued firing, then our backup with his 45/70 fired twice into the bear on the seventh or eighth shots.
When the first 45/70 bullets hit it, the bear went down and it got back up; the second hit didn't seem to phase it. Alsworth and I advanced and kept firing at the bear.
We stopped 15 yards from the wounded brownie. I heard one of the most terrible sounds I have ever heard in my life. My hunting partner's gun went click; he had run out of ammunition.
Immediately I leveled off at the animal and squeezed the trigger; the Smith & Wesson exhaled its fire breath. The bear went down and stayed.
Close inspection of the bear's revealed the body parts of another bear buried beneath the vegetation. The bear had been eating a bear. Then something caught my eye to the left along the riverbank. It was a another brownie.
Our labored breathing is all that could be heard for that moment as the great bear lay dead.
Collecting our wits, we stayed back from the beast just in case it came back alive. It's a very good idea not to go charging in after a kill, especially with bears.
I like to give a minimum of 30 minutes after the bear goes down before going up to it. Simply said, it's too dangerous.
In the end, the bear had been shot 12 times. Two bullets found their mark from the 45/70 rifle and there were 10 slugs from the pair of .500 handguns.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?page=h_fea_bear_brown_AK_handgun_J.Oltersdorf2
The first recorded polar bear killed by a .44 magnum in 1965 was killed as part of a similar hunt with lots of backup. It was hit center of mass with 5 shots by a very experienced pistol shooter and hunter at 25 yards, three of which penetrated for the kill.
The bear was now in the open just 25 yards away and presented a perfect broadside position to Petersen. He quickly lined up the sights and carefully squeezed off his first shot, using the two-handed hold he favors. The aiming point was just behind the huge shoulder and had been decided on as the best spot in prehunt discussions. It was felt that the shoulder itself would present too massive an object for good penetration of the 240-grain .44 Norma bullet.
At the shot, the bear staggered perceptibly and the tell-tale red spot, indicating the point of impact, appeared exactly where it should. It still had not spotted the three men.
Also as planned, Petersen fought down the big sixgun out of recoil and squeezed off his second shot, hitting the bear just three inches lower than the first bullet. Again the bear staggered, then he bellowed and swapped directions, facing the other way. He simply stood there swaying as the third slug slammed into him, quartering behind the left shoulder. This one bowled him over, but he bounced right back up. The fourth and fifth rounds also hit back of the diaphragm and ranged forward into the chest cavity, and the bear simply toppled over with hardly a quiver. The whole scene lasted seven or eight seconds.
Taking no chances, the trio stood there with Thompson covering the bear with his rifle as Petersen quickly reloaded. But the first recorded polar bear ever to fall to a .44 Magnum had had it.
Denny's first words were that he had never believed it possible for the big sixgun to be fired that rapidly and accurately under those conditions. His look and tone of admiration for Petersen's performance was justified. Petersen, with the slightest trace of perspiration visible beneath the fur piece of his parka, grinned weakly and simply said, "Phew!"
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/classics/polar_1007/
Charon
-
yep.. I would agree with all of that. What I am saying is that whatever revolver is considered "the most powerful" at the time has been taken on these hunts and polar bears have been included... elephants and lions and whatever up to and including grizzly bears.. this was true when the .357 mag came out and is true today with the 500 mag.
I recall reading all the stories of handgun hunting every dangerous game known to man with the 44 mag when it came out and even up till today.. while no one seriously thinks a .357 is the gun to take.. it is still being done and.. recent cast solids in 44 mag of up to 330 grains have shown a resurgence in 44 mag hunting of large dangerous game.
I would want a rifle.. a really powerful one but..
Backup or just a hiking gun? the 44 mag is still king for balance between something you can and will carry and something with some real knockdown power.. you can get 24 ounce 44 mag revolvers.. they are not much fun to shoot but they carry well and pack a 44 mag punch.
lazs
-
Charon:
"Remember that bullet placement is absolutely crucial, so whatever handgun you choose for protection in the field, make sure that you can shoot it with great precision. You can't miss (or even score peripheral hits) fast enough to come out on top in a deadly encounter with a large predator!"
The point I had from the hunter was that once the bear goes low and into your general direction at good speed, you need absolute penetration for success. And the 9mm for instance might be bouncing off the sloping head and chest like nothing. You'd want something that doesn't deflect, so that would have to be fast and heavy.
Tommygun?
:devil
-
Oh, how about the Desert Eagle then? That's a .50 right?
-
IIRC it's made in that and .357, at least.
Good reading.
-
Something I've been seeing more and more is reports of people openly carrying a sidearm in public.
Something many don't SEEM to know is that in many places in the U.S. it IS lawful and legal to openly carry a firearm in public!
BUT...............
this is what usually happens to you if you do.................
http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4010/83/
when I say carry I refer to the sidearm HOLSTERED on a belt at the persons side.
Something else to consider!!!!
If you are bearing a firearm you will be held to a HIGHER standard of the law then someone that is not.
example: You should NOT get into a heated argument with anyone! (you're armed and some would say you were trying to incite.....) Another way of saying it is the court would probably say you either have to disarm or BACK away from said argument.
There are many things that become VERY different if you are ARMED! Don't matter if it's open carry or concealed carry if you are armed you are held to a different.. HIGHER standard then someone not armed.
It is POSSIBLE that open carry became unpopular due to the standard you placed your self under while doing so.
-
The point I had from the hunter was that once the bear goes low and into your general direction at good speed, you need absolute penetration for success. And the 9mm for instance might be bouncing off the sloping head and chest like nothing. You'd want something that doesn't deflect, so that would have to be fast and heavy.
Tommygun?
Well, you're probably about to be mauled and or eaten at that point :) A well placed revolver magnum firing a heavy, non-expanding round could work if, in your panic, you hit it enough times in a critical area in those few seconds of last opportunity. A full central nervous system or heart/lung failure shot (s). They charge at about 25 mph / 40kph
Me, in that case I would hope to have a much slower, more out of shape hunting partner. If that didn't work, perhaps a rifle in the 300+ magnum range, or or better yet a .458 win mag. with a 500 grain bullet at about 2200 fps and 5000 lb + energy. A pintle mounted M2 would be even better. A charging, angry, hungry polar bear or grizzly at 20 yards or less just readjusted the food chain. maybe play dead and hope he just ate a walrus and doesn't maul you that much before he gets bored.
Again, I've never hunted a bear, but big game hunters tend to take large charging predators very, very seriously. Look at the double rifles used in Africa. Only two shots, really powerful shots. No bolt to work, few mechanicals to malfunction, less chance for operator error. Don't need more than two. If its not dead by two you better hope your guide has killed it because it's starting to chew on you at that point, or trample you if its a big buffalo or Rhino or Elephant. Same applies in the predator bear world.
Doesn't mean people don't peacefully coexist with brown or polar bears regularly. They try to avoid humans, usually. Just that in a violent confrontation we really, really need our tools to survive.
Charon
-
I'm going to have to agree with wrag on this one. As a hunter and sport shooter, I know all about the responsibility necessary to not only use a firearm, but to own and carry it in public, whether it be openly or concealed. You definitely are held to a higher standard when you have a firearm on your person, specifically when it is carried openly.
I think the whole "open-carry" law is okay for smaller towns or cities, but when it's a big old city like here in Los Angeles, not so much. I'd prefer that they allowed a CCW permit in California, mainly for safety, but we can't all be winners.
-
Just remember that some of you CCW holders give up the right to open carry.
shamus
-
So what's your point, was he right or wrong i don't get it? Because grandma or some gun activist called in when she/he saw his gun he got harassed by officers sadly lacking in knowledge of the laws they are supposed to uphold?
I'd rather know the guy i was facing had a gun, than not know, for my own piece of mind. I personally don't like concealed carry, i'd like to see it openly carried.
It's funny that people fear the legal gun owners that have the right, the training and skill to lawfully, and i stress, LAWFULLY, carry a gun. But yet they'll go with any idiot that promises them a good deal on something into a dark alley. :(
Gun debates never come out good but IMO we don't need more laws. We need knowledgeable police to enforce the laws we have, we need to hold the sellers of illegal guns and the owners/user of the illegal guns accountable fully for their actions.
In other words, you sell a gun illegally, Joe Schmoe kills someone with it, your tried right along with him as an accessory to murder.
-
Right or wrong, open carry is a bad idea. Very bad. You give away one of your most important tools of self defense....the element of surprise. Carrying open alerts the criminal that you must be delt with quickly and violently as you are a dangerous mark.
Many would argue that it would deter attacks. Maybe so of the average robber/rapist, but it would mean little to a crackhead/drunkard. It could even make you a target of attack. A crazed crackhead would see that as an item of high value just hanging there and if he attacks fast enough he can get it and trade it for his next high. You may end up wasting the guy, but the whole idea is to avoid confrontation to stay safe in the first place.
Say you are in a gas station and a thug walks in with a gun in his pants intent of robbing the place. If he sees a gun strapped to your side, he may likely pull it and cap you first to eliminate the threat. You've got to think, criminal drug addicts are not rational people. A need for quick cash to buy another hit is a very strong motivator.
I come from the "Walk softly and carry a big stick" school of thought. Look normal and blend in. Try to avoid dangerous situations and confrontation. If someone does threaten me and I find myself in imminent danger then its a quick draw and a well-placed shot. Only when its too late will they know I'm an armed citizen.
-
I completely agree
-
Right or wrong, open carry is a bad idea. Very bad.
NOPE, WRONG.
Open carry is a good idea. An armed robber is not going to rob a bank if he sees half the customers carrying guns. If they were all concealed, you'd have yourself a shootout.
Many would argue that it would deter attacks. Maybe so of the average robber/rapist, but it would mean little to a crackhead/drunkard. It could even make you a target of attack. A crazed crackhead would see that as an item of high value just hanging there and if he attacks fast enough he can get it and trade it for his next high. You may end up wasting the guy, but the whole idea is to avoid confrontation to stay safe in the first place.
Say you are in a gas station and a thug walks in with a gun in his pants intent of robbing the place. If he sees a gun strapped to your side, he may likely pull it and cap you first to eliminate the threat. You've got to think, criminal drug addicts are not rational people. A need for quick cash to buy another hit is a very strong motivator.
Weapon retention is a simple responsibility.
If someone does threaten me and I find myself in imminent danger then its a quick draw and a well-placed shot. Only when its too late will they know I'm an armed citizen.
And how many people have you felled with a well placed shot?
-
I have got to say that I have never understood these open carry zealots, especially in "shall issue states".
If carrying a pistol is important to you, go through the process for Christs sake.
Strutting around with a handgun on your side is kind of silly as well as dangerous, I for one, if involved in a crime, would shoot you first.
shamus
-
I have got to say that I have never understood these open carry zealots, especially in "shall issue states".
If carrying a pistol is important to you, go through the process for Christs sake.
Strutting around with a handgun on your side is kind of silly as well as dangerous, I for one, if involved in a crime, would shoot you first.
shamus
or think twice if there were several others armed within the targeted establishment. here in my beloved florida the gubmint is liberally allowing self defense including the use of deadly force. if I feel in any way threatened I may shoot. along with this sensible approach the punishment dealt criminals who use firearms in the commission of a felony has been harshened considerably. I don't have statistics but in the rough neighborhood where I work armed robberies are way down, way way down. perhaps people more adept with finding stuff on the web will look up those stats and see if my perception for florida is bourne out by the facts.
I know that not to long after the shall issue permits wee implemented two hispanic thugs attempted to hold up a mostly cash wholesaler and in the process of doing so many patrons drew their concealed weapons. I was not present at this hold up attempt but a freind who was said that click click click click click click of hammers and slides being worked around and behind the thugs put an end to the assault.
-
I was not present at this hold up attempt but a freind who was said that click click click click click click of hammers and slides being worked around and behind the thugs put an end to the assault.
Nice.. gun owners w/ cool heads. It's funny, the OC and CC crowd commit almost no violent crimes yet people get their panties in a wad over this so easily
-
or think twice if there were several others armed within the targeted establishment. here in my beloved florida the gubmint is liberally allowing self defense including the use of deadly force. if I feel in any way threatened I may shoot. along with this sensible approach the punishment dealt criminals who use firearms in the commission of a felony has been harshened considerably. I don't have statistics but in the rough neighborhood where I work armed robberies are way down, way way down. perhaps people more adept with finding stuff on the web will look up those stats and see if my perception for florida is bourne out by the facts.
I know that not to long after the shall issue permits wee implemented two hispanic thugs attempted to hold up a mostly cash wholesaler and in the process of doing so many patrons drew their concealed weapons. I was not present at this hold up attempt but a freind who was said that click click click click click click of hammers and slides being worked around and behind the thugs put an end to the assault.
Of course...and you are talking about concealed weapons are you not? that is an unknown that would cause pause, open carry is a whole different matter.
Open carry proponents from what I have seen are trying to make a constitutional point or trying to fill some unfulfilled emotional void.
shamus
-
Open carry proponents from what I have seen are trying to make a constitutional point or trying to fill some unfulfilled emotional void.
shamus
Go ahead and explain that one. Or are you just randomly spouting negative things?
-
Go ahead and explain that one. Or are you just randomly spouting negative things?
Its a personal observation not really random, you may have different personal experiences.
-
I have got to say that I have never understood these open carry zealots, especially in "shall issue states".
If carrying a pistol is important to you, go through the process for Christs sake.
Strutting around with a handgun on your side is kind of silly as well as dangerous, I for one, if involved in a crime, would shoot you first.
shamus
Yeah! How dare these people exercise their Federal and State Constitutional rights?! HOW DARE THEY!?! WHEN WILL THEY LEARN TO SUBMIT!?!?!?!
-
Yeah! How dare these people exercise their Federal and State Constitutional rights?! HOW DARE THEY!?! WHEN WILL THEY LEARN TO SUBMIT!?!?!?!
Good!!!lets keep the Bill of Rights front and center!!!, but don't you guys forget the 4th, 5th and 8th.
shamus
-
Just an FYI.
When you are OC'ing please remember that if you then enter a vehicle it is considered concealed. If you do not have a CCW permit you would have to unload and put gun in one place and shells in another. :salute
-
Just an FYI.
When you are OC'ing please remember that if you then enter a vehicle it is considered concealed. If you do not have a CCW permit you would have to unload and put gun in one place and shells in another. :salute
Actually this varies greatly from State to State. IN AZ you may carry in a vehicle, loaded and unless you have a CCW, the gun must be visible and holstered or contained, if it is in the passenger compartment.
-
In Alabama if you have an open carry permit...not easy to come by here for some reason in Jefferson County...the gun must be visible and if stopped for a traffic violation you must tell the police officer when he comes to your vehicle. Otherwise they try to get you on attempted assault of a law enforcement officer up here.
-
NOPE, WRONG.
Open carry is a good idea. An armed robber is not going to rob a bank if he sees half the customers carrying guns. If they were all concealed, you'd have yourself a shootout.
Now if everyone had one strapped on, thats different. Of course every town would be like the OK Corral with as many irresponsible/hotheads as we have today.
To be realistic, it would be more like maybe one customer out of a group of ten that would have an open carry showing....if that. Even though it would be legal, this isn't the old west. Lets be realistic for a moment:
To beat a criminal, you must think like a criminal.
With that in mind, if I were to rob a bank, upon walking in I would look for anyone who looks like they would ruin my plans. The open carry guy would be imediately picked out as a threat. I would casually ease over in line behind him like any other customer and as soon as he looked forward to await his turn, I'd pull my gun out of my pants and put it against the back of his head and take his gun as a trophy, or even easier, just cap him in the base of the skull and be done with it.
It would be the normal, casual looking customers with a gun concealed about them that would ruin a criminals' plans.
-
I think the overwhelming majority of those preaching or practicing open carry are sad people looking for attention, or trying to impress strangers. It stems from something lacking in their self-esteem to have such a need.
I have a CCW, and don't even bother carrying, sure wouldn't want to advertise if I was carrying concealed, open carry would seem ludicrous.
-
Of course...and you are talking about concealed weapons are you not? that is an unknown that would cause pause, open carry is a whole different matter.
Open carry proponents from what I have seen are trying to make a constitutional point or trying to fill some unfulfilled emotional void.
shamus
no open carry in FL but I think open carry would indeed be a far better deterrant. when we were in AZ last I was amazed at the number of dudes with iron out in the open. I think it makes a strong impression and there was no place I went where there weren't more than a few armed.
-
To beat a criminal, you must think like a criminal.
With that in mind, if I were to rob a bank, upon walking in I would look for anyone who looks like they would ruin my plans. The open carry guy would be imediately picked out as a threat. I would casually ease over in line behind him like any other customer and as soon as he looked forward to await his turn, I'd pull my gun out of my pants and put it against the back of his head and take his gun as a trophy, or even easier, just cap him in the base of the skull and be done with it.
It would be the normal, casual looking customers with a gun concealed about them that would ruin a criminals' plans.
Dude you live in fantasy land. Almost all robbers are looking for the eaisest, fastest way to get cash. If they see strapped folks, they move on. Three's lots of examples where crime went down more relaxed carry laws.
Also, every single person I know.... every single one that carries open, practices good retention technique. OC is a proven crime deterrent, period.
-
Dude you live in fantasy land. Almost all robbers are looking for the eaisest, fastest way to get cash. If they see strapped folks, they move on. Three's lots of examples where crime went down more relaxed carry laws.
Also, every single person I know.... every single one that carries open, practices good retention technique. OC is a proven crime deterrent, period.
I will agree that most criminals look for the softest target, but what you don't seem to understand, and I know I will never convince you, is that openly advertising your capabilities makes you the soft target.
You are probably the guy that thinks he can pick out all the secret service guys by looking for sunglasses and earpieces.
You are the one living in fantasy land my friend.
shamus
-
I will agree that most criminals look for the softest target, but what you don't seem to understand, and I know I will never convince you, is that openly advertising your capabilities makes you the soft target.
You are probably the guy that thinks he can pick out all the secret service guys by looking for sunglasses and earpieces.
You are the one living in fantasy land my friend.
shamus
You can lead a liberal to logic, but you can't make him think.
Criminals look for the pansiest group of peace loving democrats they can find. They will skip over ANY hint of anything that can fight back, to find a group that won't fight back. And with pansies such as yourself running around, it's rather easy to find it.
They will NOT engage someone with an open carry just as much as the guy down your street that played for the Defensive Line of the 2005 Patriots will NEVER be mugged.
-
You can lead a liberal to logic, but you can't make him think.
Criminals look for the pansiest group of peace loving democrats they can find. They will skip over ANY hint of anything that can fight back, to find a group that won't fight back. And with pansies such as yourself running around, it's rather easy to find it.
They will NOT engage someone with an open carry just as much as the guy down your street that played for the Defensive Line of the 2005 Patriots will NEVER be mugged.
Well you see while everyone is watching the guy like you dancing and flexing, impressing himself, the laid back pansies in the background will get the job done after you hot shots get disarmed or killed.
shamus
-
Dude you live in fantasy land. Almost all robbers are looking for the eaisest, fastest way to get cash. If they see strapped folks, they move on. Three's lots of examples where crime went down more relaxed carry laws.
Also, every single person I know.... every single one that carries open, practices good retention technique. OC is a proven crime deterrent, period.
No, I live in a land that is lax on crime...with lots of it. Correct, "almost all" criminals look for the easiest way. It's the desperate, drug-crazed or just plain crazy ones that should worry you. Look how many police and security officers have been gunned down in the line of duty. These are professionals armed with many weapons and tools and have training to take control of dangerous situations and have countless numbers to back them up with a single radio call, yet crazed individuals shoot it out with them ayway. If a madman will shoot a police officer, do you think they will be scared of an average joe with a gun strapped on?
I'm with you 100% on the RIGHT to carry open. I have no problem with it. It's just not for me. I carry every day but I choose to blend in and appear harmless.
-
I will agree that most criminals look for the softest target, but what you don't seem to understand, and I know I will never convince you, is that openly advertising your capabilities makes you the soft target.
I do understand. I understand that if someone is bent on killing you, they will. Whether you are armed or not. Do you understand that OC reduces crime?
-
NOPE, WRONG.
Open carry is a good idea. An armed robber is not going to rob a bank if he sees half the customers carrying guns. If they were all concealed, you'd have yourself a shootout.
Weapon retention is a simple responsibility.
And how many people have you felled with a well placed shot?
Not only that, but open carry gives one the opportunity to make a fashion statement. Do you want to look threatning, or passive? A set of cross draw .44s like that guy in 3:10 to Yuma sported definately give off the vibe of "don't cut in line in front of me pal" whereas a Kimber .45 in a shoulder holster says "you leave me alone and I leave you alone."
-
Actually this varies greatly from State to State. IN AZ you may carry in a vehicle, loaded and unless you have a CCW, the gun must be visible and holstered or contained, if it is in the passenger compartment.
Thanks for clearing that up Steve. I guess I should have mentioned here in PA.
-
If a madman will shoot a police officer, do you think they will be scared of an average joe with a gun strapped on?
I'm with you 100% on the RIGHT to carry open. I have no problem with it. It's just not for me. I carry every day but I choose to blend in and appear harmless.
No, but we're not talking madmen, statistically, they are a minute fraction of the criminal element. I believe that if a guy wants to kill you, and is willing to die himself, there is little you can do if he gets the drop on you. That is regardless of whether you are carrying or not, IMHO. Will you agree that there are a heck of a lot more burglars and robbers out there than random murdering madmen?
FWIW, I do not OC, I CC. I spend time in buildings where guns are prohibited(but CC regardless) so OC for me would be impractacle much of the time.
-
Not only that, but open carry gives one the opportunity to make a fashion statement. Do you want to look threatning, or passive? A set of cross draw .44s like that guy in 3:10 to Yuma sported definately give off the vibe of "don't cut in line in front of me pal" whereas a Kimber .45 in a shoulder holster says "you leave me alone and I leave you alone."
Interestingly enough I have a stainless goldmatch in .45. No shoulder holster though.. lol
-
Thanks for clearing that up Steve. I guess I should have mentioned here in PA.
The whole unload-your-gun-when-you-get-in-the-car thing is pretty darned stupid, don't you think? I mean, what is the intent of that law? It makes little sense to me.
-
The whole unload-your-gun-when-you-get-in-the-car thing is pretty darned stupid, don't you think? I mean, what is the intent of that law? It makes little sense to me.
I agree it makes little sense to me too. I also have a CCW permit so it does not affect me. :aok
-
I spend time in buildings where guns are prohibited(but CC regardless)
Now we are seeing eye-to-eye. :aok
-
I do understand. I understand that if someone is bent on killing you, they will. Whether you are armed or not. Do you understand that OC reduces crime?
If you tell me it does in AZ I will take your word for it.
I have seen studies that show a drop in crime after shall issue CCW laws were passed, and I know crime dropped in Michigan after its passage, but even though open carry is legal here as far as I know for non CCW holders , it is not common here and I have never seen any data on it.
I have been carrying for over 30 years and can tell you from experience that the dicey stuff happens after the weapon is drawn, and if you are identified as armed sometimes it is forced, anecdotal I know but it counts.
My opinion is that open carry would cause more problems than it would solve.
shamus
-
The whole unload-your-gun-when-you-get-in-the-car thing is pretty darned stupid
and highly impractical in the case of muzzle loading types.
-
Just an FYI.
When you are OC'ing please remember that if you then enter a vehicle it is considered concealed. If you do not have a CCW permit you would have to unload and put gun in one place and shells in another. :salute
Depends on the State you live in IIRC.
Here in Nevada yes it is concealed UNLESS you place it in plan sight!
Like on the dashboard?
Then it's LEGAL again..............
Not sure I would want to place my firearm on the dash but...........
Maybe if I was getting pulled over for a traffic violation or something then maybe?
-
I will agree that most criminals look for the softest target, but what you don't seem to understand, and I know I will never convince you, is that openly advertising your capabilities makes you the soft target.
You are probably the guy that thinks he can pick out all the secret service guys by looking for sunglasses and earpieces.
You are the one living in fantasy land my friend.
shamus
A point that I THINK may be being missed here is NOT too many criminals want to face murder charges.
I mean yes they're some that are out and out criminals BUT....
Throw in the possibility that for every OC there is PROBABLY a CC and.......
ALSO............
Some States also still enforce the death penalty for murder.
-
I will agree that most criminals look for the softest target, but what you don't seem to understand, and I know I will never convince you, is that openly advertising your capabilities makes you the soft target.
You are probably the guy that thinks he can pick out all the secret service guys by looking for sunglasses and earpieces.
You are the one living in fantasy land my friend.
shamus
shamus you can do that with most concealed carry people as well! the fanny packs most CC carriers utilize are blatantly obvious and you have more stuff to fumble with that a holster. if the person carrying in these fanny packs does not routinely practice drawing his weapon he's dead before he knows it if the thug has targeted him. he simply will not have the muscle memory to perform the moves especially under duress, I already know that I didn't when the chips were down and all I had to do was remove a seatbelt, something I did many many times each day.
-
solids are the thing.. those big double rifles all used solids.. I would agree that an M2 is the way to go but if I had to CARRY a gun hiking.. I would carry a 44 mag with 300 grain solids.. you want penetration not expansion. you want a big slug and.. you want a gun that doesn't weigh a ton if your primary goal is hiking or working in the woods and not hunting.. also.. maybe.. if you want a "backup" you still don't want to be burdened with 5 more pounds of revolver at your hip.. the 44 mag is to me, the best comprimise.
lazs
-
Yeah I think a .44 magnum with the heaviest, hottest loads would be about the best choice for a hiking backup gun.
Of course, most hikers seem to get by by avoiding the bears and giving them a chance to avoid you. I probably wouldn't be field crafty enough to do that unless it was something obvious -- probably be a darwin post about me at some outdoorsman site -- but then I probably wouldn't be going into bear country without being with someone who was.
I think for a light handy rifle, my Enfield No. 5 would be a good choice. Really light and handy, and the recoil for me is nothing compared to its reputation. The .303 isn't a top rifle cartridge, but it has dropped elephants and most North American big game. You can also load it with heavier hard cast rounds.
Now, if you run into a pack of Wolves :)
I saw a discovery channel piece on the mega fauna 10000 years ago in north america. Bears, lions tigers various gray and dire wolves... Most about 25-50 percent bigger than they are today.
In gun circles you always have the SHTF discussions, or what if you had to hunt T rex... I wondered what would be a good weapon for surviving that. You would have 2000 lb bears, 1000 lb lions and tigers and packs of 150 lb wolves. All hungry and as yet, probably not that afraid of man.
Our ancestors got along by working in groups with spears which get the job done if you have enough of them or the animal knows to fear them and decides to go elsewhere for easier meat.
But being alone in that wilderness with what you could readily carry and perhaps an ammo stash at a home base cave...
What would meet the threat of both a 2000+ lb bear and a pack of wolves?
Charon
-
Yeah I think a .44 magnum with the heaviest, hottest loads would be about the best choice for a hiking backup gun.
Of course, most hikers seem to get by by avoiding the bears and giving them a chance to avoid you. I probably wouldn't be field crafty enough to do that unless it was something obvious -- probably be a darwin post about me at some outdoorsman site -- but then I probably wouldn't be going into bear country without being with someone who was.
I think for a light handy rifle, my Enfield No. 5 would be a good choice. Really light and handy, and the recoil for me is nothing compared to its reputation. The .303 isn't a top rifle cartridge, but it has dropped elephants and most North American big game. You can also load it with heavier hard cast rounds.
Now, if you run into a pack of Wolves :)
I saw a discovery channel piece on the mega fauna 10000 years ago in north america. Bears, lions tigers various gray and dire wolves... Most about 25-50 percent bigger than they are today.
In gun circles you always have the SHTF discussions, or what if you had to hunt T rex... I wondered what would be a good weapon for surviving that. You would have 2000 lb bears, 1000 lb lions and tigers and packs of 150 lb wolves. All hungry and as yet, probably not that afraid of man.
Our ancestors got along by working in groups with spears which get the job done if you have enough of them or the animal knows to fear them and decides to go elsewhere for easier meat.
But being alone in that wilderness with what you could readily carry and perhaps an ammo stash at a home base cave...
What would meet the threat of both a 2000+ lb bear and a pack of wolves?
Charon
A jeep with an M2 .50 Machine gun? :D
-
charon.. not to nit pic but I don't find the enfield to be much good for anything.. it is not light.. it is a heavy gun.. you can get any of a number of light rifles but the enfield is not one of em.. it is not powerful.. it was only surpassed in weakness in WWII by a few Italy rifles. I have not found it to be particularly accurate... two piece stock and all.. every single modern light weight rifle will outshoot and outpower it.
lazs
-
Charon:
"What would meet the threat of both a 2000+ lb bear and a pack of wolves?"
I forgot the automatic shotgun....but how about 2 Tommyguns then :D
BTW, how would a 12 gauge slug be? Vs bear, I mean?
-
Ever see a really big Bear? Ever see one in the wild?
Once you do the thought of ever hunting one with a handgun goes right from your mind. I suppose a trail gun makes sense if your out hiking and it aint hunting season. Even then I'd prefer a .454 Casull with 300 grn Speer SPs, or, heavy cast bullets. I did a test on Speer SPs out of the big Casull and found out they penetrate even better then cast bullets, and with better expansion to boot.
But any other time? To me bear guns start at a .338 win mag and I'd prefer a .375 H&H. In Africa stopping rifles start at .404 and go up to about .505. In Africa a .375 H&H is kinda like a 3006 is here in America.
But I do believe the tough Speer SPs are the best handgun hunting bullet for big game.
-
charon.. not to nit pic but I don't find the Enfield to be much good for anything.. it is not light.. it is a heavy gun.. you can get any of a number of light rifles but the Enfield is not one of em.. it is not powerful.. it was only surpassed in weakness in WWII by a few Italy rifles. I have not found it to be particularly accurate... two piece stock and all.. every single modern light weight rifle will outshoot and outpower it.
The No. 5 is the "jungle carbine" version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_Carbine Comes in at about 7 lbs, which is about 2lbs lighter than the no. 4 and a bit shorter and more handy. People complain about the recoil but I have no problem, probably because I replaced the old, worn out leather recoil pad with a new rubber cushioned (but original looking) one.
I agree it's not the most powerful .30 cal round, though the military bullet design makes it particularly lethal against soft targets. But you can handload or buy commercial hunting rounds or cast round nosed bullets with a higher mass and better performance against harder targets.
In WWI and WWII the Enfield was broadly (but no universally) considered the best combat bolt rifle due to magazine size and a higher rate of fire for a bolt gun with a round more than capable of killing a human. It's not as robust as the Mauser action but there was no issues with that encountered in the field.
Canadians have hunted big bears and elk and moose with it for most of the 20th century (but the same can even be said for 30/30 too). It has been used to hunt big game in Africa, though again there are clearly much better choices. It would give a lot more stopping power than a handgun (and I can shoot it better than a handgun), but as noted there are light modern alternatives you could probably find with a better round. Even 30.06 or 7.62. A MN M38 or M44 would have more stopping power, but I really can't stand the recoil in my M38. Of the guns in my safe, without having to buy a new one, it would work :)
Charon
-
I forgot the automatic shotgun....but how about 2 Tommyguns then
The automatic shotgun with magnum loads and slugs would be in the neighborhood probably. A magnum or larger revolver for backup. Problem with the.45 is that for big game you need a lot of penetration power to reach the brain or boiler room. A .45 works great with humans and even dire wolves at 150 lbs but a 2000 lb megafauna bear (or grizzly or polar) would be pushing it.
As GTO noted, a M2 on a jeep would be great... as long as you had some open ground. Life would probably be pretty terrifying all on your own on a day to day basis back in the megafauna days. A saber toothed tiger would only be a moderate threat :)
[EDIT: some highlights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Lion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre-toothed_cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctodus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_Mammoth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Bison
http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlife_news.view_article&issue_id=41&articles_id=232 ]
Charon
-
Ever see a really big Bear? Ever see one in the wild?
Once you do the thought of ever hunting one with a handgun goes right from your mind.
LMAO
No it doesn`t.
For the hunter it is an enticement.
-
I have no problem with open carry.
My belief is things would be better all around if you wanted to carry, carry in any fashion you desire.
In other words...pack or don`t pack. Up to you.
-
Freedom Arms .454 if your going in the wild. :aok :rock
-
Weapon retention is hardly a simple matter. There are many Police Officers killed with their own weapon each year. It was obvious that they were armed and the carry was open yet in a fight maintaining control of the weapon is dicey even for a holster that is has a full snap. In training we had more than a few good quality new holsters torn in mock weapon retention training. It is not too uncommon in a bad fight for the weapon to come out of the holster in the process making access to anyone standing around or also in the fight. I've had to snatch up a pistol that came loose from one officer's holster while in the middle of trying to subdue a suspect being arrested.
All it takes is for someone behind you to snatch it out of the holster before you know they are there while you are dealing with one person. We tried that in training and even when you were expecting it to happen it was at best a 50 - 50 chance of holding the gun in the holster but now you are in a fight for the gun and that's when most of the holsters ripped. That's one of the reasons Cops are paranoid about people being behind them.
-
Just cause I like my new home....
http://www.opencarry.org/id.html
Idaho
Summary
Idaho is one of our "Gold Star" open carry states. They have full preemption of state laws, open carry is increasingly common and open carry is legal in motor vehicles.
-
I've been shooting gulls with a 2 3/4" 12 gauge together with friends that have 3" automatic of many brands.
Mine is a rather long barreled Russian Baikal.
Anyway, when I went up to 42.5 grammes, my firepower was better, the range was. Seemed like the reload more than ate up the difference in ammo size.
My dream has always been a 2 barrel Baikal, top&under for 3" ammo. Load up with slugs and what happens to teddy?
-
rich.. I would not hunt large bears with a handgun either... but.. when the .357 came out in 1935 people hunted and killed every type of animal on the planet with one.. when the 44 mag came out people hunted and killed every type animal on the planet with one.. they have killed far more dangerous game than the 500 magnum of which people are now out hunting with trying to kill every type of animal on the planet with.
The 44 mag is still used by most guides and savy hunters because it is a good compromise between power and weight. I would rather have one than not and.. I would not use softpoints for dangerous game.. I would use solids of 300 or more grains.
charon.. the jungle carbine is even more inaccurate than the regular enfield.. the only reason the enfield was considered a good gun was because it had a large mag and FOR A BOLT ACTION it was fast. the reason that canadians hunt with em is because they are the most common gun. They would be far better served with a good lightweight rifle with synthetic stock and chambered in a far more powerful round like the .308 or ought six.. there is nothing special about the weak 303 round except that it is.... weak.
lazs
-
So, the 44 mag has more power than the .357...?
-
You can kill one with a .22 too. That isnt the issue. In my opinion to hunt a big bear with a handgun is a stunt, not a valid hunting tactic. I like hunting with hanguns too but if I was to ever go after a Griz on purpose I'd bring a heavy magnum rifle.
And Africa? Forgetaboutit. First off the only country you can hunt with a handgun is the RSA. Every other country has a "minumum for dangerous game" of a .375 rifle. Even an old timer like the brit .303 can launch a 180 grn pill with a ME of 2,600 lbs. A handgun like the .44 mag isnt even close.
Hey Jackal1 how many big bears have you taken with a handgun?
rich.. I would not hunt large bears with a handgun either... but.. when the .357 came out in 1935 people hunted and killed every type of animal on the planet with one.. when the 44 mag came out people hunted and killed every type animal on the planet with one.. they have killed far more dangerous game than the 500 magnum of which people are now out hunting with trying to kill every type of animal on the planet with.
The 44 mag is still used by most guides and savy hunters because it is a good compromise between power and weight. I would rather have one than not and.. I would not use softpoints for dangerous game.. I would use solids of 300 or more grains.
charon.. the jungle carbine is even more inaccurate than the regular enfield.. the only reason the enfield was considered a good gun was because it had a large mag and FOR A BOLT ACTION it was fast. the reason that canadians hunt with em is because they are the most common gun. They would be far better served with a good lightweight rifle with synthetic stock and chambered in a far more powerful round like the .308 or ought six.. there is nothing special about the weak 303 round except that it is.... weak.
lazs
-
.22 vs a Polar Bear looks worse than having a pitchfork....
I think Lazs has it with the .44 magnum.
-
Hey Jackal1 how many big bears have you taken with a handgun?
None with a handgun period. I`d love to have the chance though.
-
Quick question if anyone knows.
Will a Buehler low scope safety for 98 also work on the the 91 Mauser?
-
charon.. the jungle carbine is even more inaccurate than the regular enfield.. the only reason the enfield was considered a good gun was because it had a large mag and FOR A BOLT ACTION it was fast. the reason that canadians hunt with em is because they are the most common gun. They would be far better served with a good lightweight rifle with synthetic stock and chambered in a far more powerful round like the .308 or ought six.. there is nothing special about the weak 303 round except that it is.... weak.
Mine shoots just fine. The difference in accuracy between any of the stock service weapons of WWII was too small to really be an issue, and there really are no service complaints about the accuracy of the No. 3 or No. 4. Some had better sights than others, but outside of competitive shooting matches 3-4 MOA was considered more than fine and about average. The No. 5 is credited with a wandering zero issue, but that doesn't seem to be replicatable by people actually trying to see if that is the case today. At the time, there was a big push to finally drop the lee enfield after 50 years of service for the FAL and some of that MIGHT have been political.
And the reasons you site for it, large action and fast are why it was considered to be the best combat bolt action used in WWI and WWII. It wasn't as robust as the Mauser, but there is no history of durability issues. In fact, quite the opposite. It had a bit looser tolerances than the Mauser and Springfield, but that didn't seem to impact accuracy to any great extent and allowed it to function better when dirty. The general saying is that the Mauser was the best hunting rifle (you can rebore it for more powerful rounds fairly easily and safely), the Springfield the best target rifle and the Enfield the best combat rifle (of the bolt actions). Killed plenty of Germans in 2 world wars, and plenty of others in numerous skirmishes and conflicts since including today in Afghanistan. But, I agree there are better hunting rifles and calibers.
If I ran into any big bear I would still rather have any Lee Enfield instead of the biggest handgun available. It may have somewhat less stopping power than a 30.06, and far less than the hunting magnums, but it has far more energy and penetration than a handgun round. As for its being "weak," as Wiki says its adequate for all big N. American game but the big bears -- but then the 30.06 isn't really seen as being all that adequate for the big bears. That being said, before the hunting super calibers came into being it was used frequently on all continents to successfully hunt all sorts of big and dangerous game. But as you stated, and as I have already stated there are better modern hunting choices. Even the 30.06 is better, but not THAT much better.
Don’t confuse any of the shortcomings illustrated in the military development of the 303 as being a detriment to its effectiveness as a hunting cartridge. On the contrary, when loaded with a 180 or 215 grain soft nosed bullet the 303 is extremely effective on any North American game and shouldn’t be discounted when selecting a rifle for the fall hunt camp. Between 1893 and 1914 the .303 established a remarkable reputation for deep penetration on heavy African game with the 215 grain round nose bullets. Probably the first hunter to use a commercial .303 rifle was F.C. Selous who obtained a .303 Holland & Holland Farquharson single shot in 1893. Arthur Neumann the elephant hunter used one of the first Lee-Metford's for hunting in 1894. The same year Major Frederick Russell Burnham used his Lee-Metford sporter for game and in 1896 for war in Rhodesia.
http://enfieldrifles.profusehost.net/gh2.htm
-
rich and charon.. people have and continue to hunt the most dangerous game on the planet with handguns including the 44 mag. I would not.
It is far from a stunt tho.. hundreds of guys have done it maybe more. I would not want to hike anywhere lugging around a high powered rifle of any sort but if I had to... If I had no access to a powerful handgun I would want a very light synthetic stocked bolt action in something like .308 or ought six.
If I had a choice between a bolt action in .303 or a lever gun in 44 mag I might take the 44 mag lever gun with it's 10 shot capacity and 1500 lbs of energy over the 2000 lbs of energy of the bolt action enfield.. a fast lever gun with 300 grain slugs that are .431 diameter are pretty good deal.
But for most of us.. we don't walk around with a 7 lb or so rifle slung over our back... with the 44 we can carry a gun that weighs as little as 24 ounces and has 6,000 lb of energy stored in it's 6 chambers. it will kill the most dangerous game known... man.. and it will kill big furry animals.
I guess I would rather have my Garand with 8 shots of semi auto ought six but I sure wouldn't want to lug that thing around all day.
My enfield is almost unused. It will not group better close to either my mauser or my garand. If you shoot more than 10 rounds out of it the zero changes. on it.. they headspace is perfect and the gun is in good order. It is more pleasant to shoot than most military rifles because it is so weak. It is not a great weight savings over the garand tho.. not for climbing around on trails with.
I don't think that one shot from a bolt action would be any better than 3 or 4 from a revolver or 2 or three from a lever gun in 44 mag. It is a bad situation in any case. If you are far enough away that you can work the safety on a bolt action gun and then shoot and then work the bolt again.. you most likely didn't need to shoot anyway.
lazs
-
Didn't know Texas was
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/715977.html
interest SEEMS to be building?
-
With me working in some pretty bad parts of Philadelphia, I've been considering concealed carry weapons.
I currently have a Taurus PT92 9mm, which was a gift. Decent gun, but it's practically a toy in my hands. Looking to get a .45 or something similar when I have some money. Tagent aside...
Being that I hardly ever wear sport coats, what are my options for holster types?
-
Depends on the State you live in IIRC.
Here in Nevada yes it is concealed UNLESS you place it in plan sight!
Like on the dashboard?
Then it's LEGAL again..............
Not sure I would want to place my firearm on the dash but...........
Maybe if I was getting pulled over for a traffic violation or something then maybe?
If I stop you and you put a gun on the dash, we are going to have a problem. And, by problem, I mean you, asphalt, handcuffs, gunpoint kind of problem.
There is no open carry here in Oklahoma besides transporting and even then, they must be unloaded. If you are a CCW permit holder, you MUST tell me that you have a weapon. If I find it on you, without you telling me, kiss your CCW permit goodbye.
I am from Arizona and I have open carried before (before my LEO time as well). I agree that maybe it would deter some crime but I think it incites unwanted attention from both sides of the law. Go CCW and put it out of the publics eye.
I carry off duty when I can. I have two jobs so sometimes I can't.
Oh, and I can CCW in any state AND on airplanes. Neener Neener! :D
-
Regarding the OP, I support open carry 100% and believe the saying "An armed society is a polite society" holds a lot of truth. But I'm really only posting to say nice sig, Maverick!
-
Does the revolver have problems in severe frost?
-
Does the revolver have problems in severe frost?
Only if you have a habit of wizzin on the cylinder. ;)
-
I don't like severe cold.. I don't even like snow so I wouldn't know from first hand experience but I have never heard of any gun freezing up unless it was wet or the type of grease or oil was too heavy.
lazs
-
This may surprise some but I think open carry in cities is a bad idea.
I believe that open carry out in the country is an ok idea just because it is easier to carry powerful firearms out in the open.. ones you may need to get to quickly to defend against animals.
In the city.. it makes no sense.. scares the children and warns the bad guys who to take out first. It also probly aggravates some and causes bravado in others.
Concealed carry in cities is and extremely good idea tho.. the bad guys don't know who is or isn't armed.. it simply gives the good guys a big advantage.. it makes, me at least, feel better knowing that in a crowd.. at least some responsible citizen is armed and has the courage to defend the rest of us if need be.
lazs
-
This may surprise some but I think open carry in cities is a bad idea.
I believe that open carry out in the country is an ok idea just because it is easier to carry powerful firearms out in the open.. ones you may need to get to quickly to defend against animals.
In the city.. it makes no sense.. scares the children and warns the bad guys who to take out first. It also probly aggravates some and causes bravado in others.
Concealed carry in cities is and extremely good idea tho.. the bad guys don't know who is or isn't armed.. it simply gives the good guys a big advantage.. it makes, me at least, feel better knowing that in a crowd.. at least some responsible citizen is armed and has the courage to defend the rest of us if need be.
lazs
Agree with Lazs 100%. One must use common sense. For instance, we have a 4x4 group that gets together and heads for the muddy trails. A couple of guys carry open. No problems. Now, if they went to Seattle and walked the streets the same method of open carry, yeah, you're going to get stopped most likely by a cop on a bike (lots of metro areas use cops on bikes).
Common sense is the key here.
-
If I stop you and you put a gun on the dash, we are going to have a problem. And, by problem, I mean you, asphalt, handcuffs, gunpoint kind of problem.
There is no open carry here in Oklahoma besides transporting and even then, they must be unloaded. If you are a CCW permit holder, you MUST tell me that you have a weapon. If I find it on you, without you telling me, kiss your CCW permit goodbye.
I am from Arizona and I have open carried before (before my LEO time as well). I agree that maybe it would deter some crime but I think it incites unwanted attention from both sides of the law. Go CCW and put it out of the publics eye.
I carry off duty when I can. I have two jobs so sometimes I can't.
Oh, and I can CCW in any state AND on airplanes. Neener Neener! :D
Think you might create a problem for yourself doing the above in the state of Nevada which is where I'm talking about.
The point I was trying to make was it is LEGAL to carry on your person or in your vehicle as long as it is OUT in the open where an officer can see it!
-
Even in the "wild west" open carry was frowned on in many towns but concealed carry was fine.. that is why there were millions of "pocket guns" produced as "civilization" crept in. Out in the country it is fine to carry openly.. no one is bumping up against you and no one is wondering if you are a good guy or a bad guy or what..
In the city it is an extremely good idea to allow anyone who wants to carry concealed in all places.
As was mentioned.. weapon retention may not be such an easy thing with the hustle and bustle of a modern city. You also stand out. While you may deter crime to an extent.. any serious life threatening crime.. you will be the first to go.
lazs
-
Here you go folks, from the Liberal judges to you. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91911666&ft=1&f=1001 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91911666&ft=1&f=1001) Guess all that gun paranoid, lefties coming after our guns stuff was all a bunch of delusional bs. That talk radio is warping your brain.
-
"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms. That's a huge shift in Constitutional law."
no..... it's not.
-
"It is the first time the Supreme Court has unequivocally taken this position on the second amendment." That wouldn't be consider a shift in policy?
-
"It is the first time the Supreme Court has unequivocally taken this position on the second amendment." That wouldn't be consider a shift in policy?
policy? yes
-
"It is the first time the Supreme Court has unequivocally taken this position on the second amendment." That wouldn't be consider a shift in policy?
Your position and statement implies there was no dissent. The vote was a narrow 5-4. Further, there were TWO opinions of dissent, both signed by all four in dissent.
The court has actually declined to hear most 2nd Amendment cases. So, it seems it would be hard to determine there was a shift, since up until now, they weren't hearing the cases, so there's not much way to determine what their policy was, other than not to hear the cases to begin with.
-
Your position and statement implies there was no dissent.
Simpler that way.
The significance of the decision is that the court has taken the stance that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms and is not merely for the protection of state militias.
Strict interpretation of the amendment. Im pleased.
-
Well, he failed to read ANY of the TWO dissenting opinions. BOTH written and signed by the liberal wing of the court, and both struggling to interpret the 2nd Amendment by anything BUT the law.
-
Just some more information
4 Descending were the liberal leaning judges.
5 Confirming were the Conservative judges.
Took a bit of time to find who was what (Liberal / conservative) Wiki for the most part.
Right down party lines.
Could you have guessed? I won the shop pool! 10 big ones baby! (So there is only 3 of us.)
I could no be happier with this ruling!
Have a great Thursday!
-
Simpler that way.
The significance of the decision is that the court has taken the stance that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms and is not merely for the protection of state militias.
Strict interpretation of the amendment. Im pleased.
Yes, but Mojava didn't get his way, so the thread is made in a baiting manner, like the generalization that all conservatives listen to right wing radio (Where's the generalization now, MT? ;) )
-
this is only a small step for freedom, the gun baners are right now working on new gun restricting laws, the fight for freedom will never end. The gun baners will never quit.
-
this is only a small step for freedom, the gun baners are right now working on new gun restricting laws, the fight for freedom will never end. The gun baners will never quit.
Same as right wingers against a women's rights to choose.. or right wingers against smut or what they think is obscenity or right wingers trying to push the bible to be taught in schools ect..ect.. They are all still hard at work as well.
Not that I'm against this ruling, I'm all for people in this country having the right to own guns but there are a lot of things the so called "conservatives" or right wing would love to force on you. So they are only for "freedom" if it's something they think is ok.. People that whine about liberals really need to look at the conservatives and the crap they try to push.
Sure liberals tend to be anti gun, but it's the so called conservatives that are out their taking away your rights. Then again this is the O Clulb and the only right anyone cares about is guns..
-
Same as right wingers against a women's rights to choose..
Just where in the Constitution did the Founder's put that one? The right to own a firearm has its very own amendment that specifically addresses the issue. Just where exactly is the word "abortion" or "woman's right to choose" in our Constitution? I have not been able to find them yet.
or right wingers trying to push the bible to be taught in schools ect..ect..
Push or allow? I think on that issue it's the question of being allowed to have the bible taught in their schools. Not to the exclusion of all else, simply that it be allowed IF desired by those choosing to take that class.
Sure liberals tend to be anti gun, but it's the so called conservatives that are out their taking away your rights. Then again this is the O Clulb and the only right anyone cares about is guns..
You must be referring to our Democratically controlled House and Senate renewing/expanding the Patriot Act? :D
I'm a conservative for sure but I'm a libertarian even more.
There can be NO DOUBT that the liberals promote more nanny government rules/laws than any other US group taken as a whole.
-
need I remind some of you...
This would not have gone well if algore or kerrie had appointed the last two supreme court justices.
I believe crockit and mojava have a huge problem in that they seem to not know what the amendments are.
There is no amendment that gives women the right to "choose" to kill their unborn..
lazs
-
You must be referring to our Democratically controlled House and Senate renewing/expanding the Patriot Act? Big Grin
It never ceases to amaze me how the two parties always seem to come together when it's time to do the wrong thing.
shamus
-
It would seem that this one gives women the right:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-
Just where in the Constitution did the Founder's put that one? The right to own a firearm has its very own amendment that specifically addresses the issue. Just where exactly is the word "abortion" or "woman's right to choose" in our Constitution? I have not been able to find them yet.
Push or allow? I think on that issue it's the question of being allowed to have the bible taught in their schools. Not to the exclusion of all else, simply that it be allowed IF desired by those choosing to take that class.
You must be referring to our Democratically controlled House and Senate renewing/expanding the Patriot Act? :D
I'm a conservative for sure but I'm a libertarian even more.
There can be NO DOUBT that the liberals promote more nanny government rules/laws than any other US group taken as a whole.
Crockpot just got so owned he probably doesn't even comprehend it..
-
It would seem that this one gives women the right:
Funny, I read that as expressly stating that women DO NOT have that right.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how the two parties always seem to come together when it's time to do the wrong thing.
shamus
Amen! bro
And yet the little lambs continue to perform the same experiment while expecting different results.
When do we just toss these tossers?
-
Funny, I read that as expressly stating that women DO NOT have that right.
Read it again, I don't think "State" and "women" are synonymous.
-
I read it that no one has the right to deprive another of life.. "choose" doesn't make it right. Where does it say that you can deprive another of life so long as you call it "choose"? does that mean parents can choose to starve kids to death?
lazs
-
Guns are allowed but bullets are strictly prohibited. Shows intent.
:huh
-
Crockpot just got so owned he probably doesn't even comprehend it..
:lol
I think this is a landmark decision by the SC. This decision will over turn many gun laws in the US. Like the one in Morton Grove IL that bans all firearms within city limits. How todays decision will affect the gun ban lobbys remains to be seen. I'm sure it won't kill their efforts or even change their minds one bit on this issue though.
-
not if you have your bullet carrying card Mac
and :aok for the 5 supreme court members
-
Amen! bro
And yet the little lambs continue to perform the same experiment while expecting different results.
When do we just toss these tossers?
When Americans wake up and pull their heads out of their anal orifices and realize that both Republican and Democratic parties lost all credibility years ago. Then and only then will a third party become truly viable.
-
The card lets you carry one bullet in the top left shirt pocket that must remain buttoned at all times Barney.
"But, But, Andy....." *sigh*
:lol
-
It would seem that this one gives women the right:
Quote
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Read it again, I don't think "State" and "women" are synonymous.
You are really reaching on that one MT. No one has the right to deprive anyone else of the rights to life, liberty or property.
-
:lol
I think this is a landmark decision by the SC. This decision will over turn many gun laws in the US. Like the one in Morton Grove IL that bans all firearms within city limits. How todays decision will affect the gun ban lobbys remains to be seen. I'm sure it won't kill their efforts or even change their minds one bit on this issue though.
You missed a key word. *Eventually. From my understanding, the Supreme Court hasn't incorporated the ruling, thus instantly invalidating every gun ban. The Supreme Court has set precedent for which the laws can now be challenged. So basically, every gun ban is illegal, but each has to be challenged individually.
-
It would seem that this one gives women the right:
Help me out here MT; there's no mention in the text of the Constitution and there is nothing to suggest that framers of Fourteenth Amendment intended to protect such a right,
Unless you found it in the text or the found some documentation that the framer's of the 14th meant to protect it?
Basically, Roe v Wade was more legislation from the bench. It had no basis in the Constitution itself. Blackmun wrote the opinion; do you know what his clerk had to say?
"As a practical matter, was not a bad decision--but as a constitutional matter it was absurd."
-
Guns are allowed but bullets are strictly prohibited. Shows intent.
:huh
Prohibiting bullets falls inline with mandating that a firearm be disassembled or have a trigger lock. It denies a person of their right to have a functioning firearm for their personal protection so that would be unconstitutional.
-
What disturbs me the most is that it was a 5/4 vote.
-
You missed a key word. *Eventually. From my understanding, the Supreme Court hasn't incorporated the ruling, thus instantly invalidating every gun ban. The Supreme Court has set precedent for which the laws can now be challenged. So basically, every gun ban is illegal, but each has to be challenged individually.
Exactly, each one will have to be challenged individually. Yet, today's decision most certainly does spell the end of these types of laws.
-
"It is the first time the Supreme Court has unequivocally taken this position on the second amendment." That wouldn't be consider a shift in policy?
cant be a shift if its the first time!!
-
Its really kinda funny when you think about it. A gun ban in DC, CHGO, NYNY, LA... :rofl It makes me want to laugh hysterically.
But that is how ingrained it is for Politicians to use guns as an "out" for their failures, and how ingrained it is for citizens to allow them to.
Imagine a guy running for mayor in a big city to show up to a neighborhood meeting and telling the folks to quit making fatherless, throw-away, babies. And to start showing some family values and personal responsibility? Imagine that?
Much easier just to blame guns. And far safer. Yaknow this country started going to hell when Politicians started looking at their job as a lifelong career. That was never the intent of our founding fathers.
-
need I remind some of you...
There is no amendment that gives women the right to "choose" to kill their unborn..
lazs
Need you be reminded there is no ammendment denying a woman the right to do so.
I would imagine a womans right to choose would be and rightfully so coverd under natural rights.
Which would deny anyone the right to tell a woman that they had to have an abortion or that they coudnt have one.
In order to be fair to all. A womans right to choice has to remain intact.
If you are against abortion. the answer is simple. Dont have one.
I am not pro abortion. I would never tell anyone to have one
but I am not anti abortion either. I would never tell anyone not to have one.
I am pro choice.
As strongly as I would defend the right to keep and bear arms.
Or a communities decision to display Chistmas items during he holidays
Or any number of issues a conservative holds near and dear
I would just as strongly defend a womans right to that choice.
Just as it is your right to own or not own a gun.
Or a communities right to display religious itemsOr to speak for or against your government.
It is a womans right to choose.
As we keep repeatedly saying here.
Rights arent only for the things we personally like or agree with.
Rights must cover everyone
-
Need you be reminded there is no ammendment denying a woman the right to do so.
I would imagine a womans right to choose would be and rightfully so coverd under natural rights.
Which would deny anyone the right to tell a woman that they had to have an abortion or that they coudnt have one.
In order to be fair to all. A womans right to choice has to remain intact.
If you are against abortion. the answer is simple. Dont have one.
I am not pro abortion. I would never tell anyone to have one
but I am not anti abortion either. I would never tell anyone not to have one.
I am pro choice.
As strongly as I would defend the right to keep and bear arms.
Or a communities decision to display Chistmas items during he holidays
Or any number of issues a conservative holds near and dear
I would just as strongly defend a womans right to that choice.
Just as it is your right to own or not own a gun.
Or a communities right to display religious itemsOr to speak for or against your government.
It is a womans right to choose.
As we keep repeatedly saying here.
Rights arent only for the things we personally like or agree with.
Rights must cover everyone
What about the rights of the baby?
-
I read it that no one has the right to deprive another of life.. "choose" doesn't make it right. Where does it say that you can deprive another of life so long as you call it "choose"? does that mean parents can choose to starve kids to death?
lazs
no but it used to be that way.
Its where the saying
"I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it" came from.
that being said. Those children are already born.
tell me laz
When is your birthday?
Do you count it from the day you were born or 9 months before?
Untill a child is born or can live on its own outside ofhe womb. It is only a potential life.
-
What about the rights of the baby?
read the last line of my last post.
Unborn babies should have no rights.
the only reason why they have been granted any rights whatsoever is to give prosecuters another charge they can throw at people who abuse or murder pregnant woman.
It had nothing to do with intentiona abortion by the mother herself.
The correct additinal charge would be in the assault or murder of a pregnant woman.
A denyal of her natural rights to be a mother or to give birth..
The unborn inand of themselves should have no rights.
ALL rights pertaining to the unborn child should be referred to the mother carrying it.
-
Long Live the Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
Need you be reminded there is no ammendment denying a woman the right to do so.
The intentional killing of a human fetus is 3 things, imo:
a) Legal
b) Cruel and Unusual Punishment
c) Death purposefuly inflicted on the most innocent and indefensable segment of our species.
Oh...did I mention that it is legal?
-
What about the rights of the baby?
What about the rights of the Father?
I believe abortion should be allowed in a case of rape, and incest with no questions asked, but as it stands today if a woman gets pregnant and wants to have an abortion she can do it and the father has no say at all in the matter. That's his child as well. That's where I have the biggest problem with everything.
I have 2 kids. A boy and a girl. I SHOULD have three kids but my ex had an abortion I didn't even know about untill years later. She never told me she was pregnant at the time and just went and had it done and NO ONE asked me what I thought about it. That was MY child that was killed before I even knew about it and it STILL pisses me off. Her reasoning was that she didn't want anymore kids and that two was enough for her. Never even crossed her mind that I might want to have anouther kid.
So what about MY rights when it comes to abortion??
-
It would seem...
Fundamental difference in ideologically-based interpretation right here.
The documents are written in English. I'm not sure how they can be misconstrued to "seem" to indicate anything. Just read em.
-
Well, Hornet, it's like this.... it's her choice as long as the fetus is not "viable outside the womb"... so you get no vote.
That's fair, right?
But if a woman has a baby the father would like to have had aborted, he gets to pay child support for a long time.
That's fair, right?
-
Not my interpretation, the SC did that for us in Roe v Wade. The 14th was cited as the reasoning behind the ruling. So IT WOULD SEEM that the 14th says that women cannot be denied the right to an abortion. Sorry for not going into more detail earlier.
-
Untill a child is born or can live on its own outside ofhe womb. It is only a potential life.
The unborn child has a heartbeat long before it can live outside the womb. What about children that are born premature? They live on life support and cannot survive w/o it. Is that child still only a potential life?
The unborn inand of themselves should have no rights
Then why can people be charged with a double murder for killing a pregnant woman? If the unborn should have no rights, then there is no additional crime committed beyond killing the mother because you have only denied one person their right to life.
-
Not my interpretation, the SC did that for us in Roe v Wade.
Roe vs Wade was the SC legislating from the bench.
-
What about the rights of the Father?
I believe abortion should be allowed in a case of rape, and incest with no questions asked, but as it stands today if a woman gets pregnant and wants to have an abortion she can do it and the father has no say at all in the matter. That's his child as well. That's where I have the biggest problem with everything.
I have 2 kids. A boy and a girl. I SHOULD have three kids but my ex had an abortion I didn't even know about untill years later. She never told me she was pregnant at the time and just went and had it done and NO ONE asked me what I thought about it. That was MY child that was killed before I even knew about it and it STILL pisses me off. Her reasoning was that she didn't want anymore kids and that two was enough for her. Never even crossed her mind that I might want to have anouther kid.
So what about MY rights when it comes to abortion??
I know your not going to like this answer.
And Im not saying it to piss you off or to hurt you.
But your rights as a father are the same as if you didnt want the kid and she did.
You have none.
Nor do I for that matter.
And quite honestly it makes sense even if you or I dont like it.
We are merely sperm donors untill the child is born.
From the time of conception the woman has all the burdon of carrying and the risk. Some women still die during childbirth.
You and I dont have the burdon. nor do we share that risk.
We get all the pleasure and none of the pain. Cept perhaps phsycologically.
One the child is born. then we can claim rights.
This two is a double edged sword.
for if we are going to claim rights as a father.
We should also be allowed to surrender those rights and responcabilities if we so choose.
What of the rightsof those who didnt want a kid?
You can as others have said say "Dont have sex"
And that makes for some very nice rhetoric.
Its just not very realistic.
But really if the woman has a child or has an abortion. We as fathers and/or potential fathers have no rights ne way or the other.
-
You have none.
Nor do I for that matter.
Wrong, it's just as much my baby as it is hers whether it has been born or not. It takes 2 to make a baby not 1 and both parents should have equal rights in this.
-
I'm out of this one. This one has gone so far off track it isn't funny.
-
Blackmun's papers were released.
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_saleton_mayjun05.msp
Now we have his previously private files—1,600 boxes of notes, draft opinions, and more—which New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse has sifted through for her new book, Becoming Justice Blackmun....
...Part of the "etc." Blackmun invoked as precedent was Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 decision that extended the right to contraception to single people. This was a sham, however: The justices designed the precedent to suit the progeny. Justice William Brennan's draft of Eisenstadt, which was circulated months after oral arguments in Roe, "was obviously crafted to apply in the abortion context," Greenhouse writes, noting that Brennan made the unnecessary assertion in Eisenstadt that the right to privacy entailed a right to choose whether to "bear" a child. Days after the court handed down Eisenstadt, Blackmun worked a reference to it into a draft of Doe, and later into Roe. Meanwhile, a federal court in Connecticut took the cue, declaring that Eisenstadt established a right to abortion. Justice Lewis Powell advised Blackmun to follow the Connecticut court's reasoning, and Blackmun ultimately did so, completing the daisy chain.
BLACKMUN'S PAPERS VINDICATE EVERY INDICTMENT of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference
Blackmun didn't interpret the Constitution here; he created someting that wasn't there. Not the legacy I'd want.
-
I'm out of this one. This one has gone so far off track it isn't funny.
Hey! If they can no longer argue 2nd/Individual Right, then we'll just have to move on to abortion. ;)
You don't want to read 200 posts in agreement now do you?
-
You don't want to read 200 posts in agreement now do you?
That would be quite the change wouldn't it? :D
-
Let me just say this, Thank God GWB was able to put 3 conservatives on the SCOTUS.
Now I can only hope many raging liberal anti-gunners will perform ritual harikari with their drug apparatus.
-
How did we go from 2nd Amendment to Abortions?
Is this what they call a Hijack?
-
The unborn child has a heartbeat long before it can live outside the womb. What about children that are born premature? They live on life support and cannot survive w/o it. Is that child still only a potential life?
Then why can people be charged with a double murder for killing a pregnant woman? If the unborn should have no rights, then there is no additional crime committed beyond killing the mother because you have only denied one person their right to life.
Point A
Cake batter forms a crust before it fully bakes.
That doesnt make it a cake
Seeds sprout roots before they break the surface of the earth.
That doesnt make it a tree
And all sorts of this can go wrong inbetween the heartbeat and the birth.
happens all the time.
Preatures would not other wise live if not on artifical life. therfore it would not have lived if left to its own devices without and artificial mother.
Its alive but not on its own.
Just as if inside the mother its alive but not on its own.
really your talking apples and oranges here.
Your talking intentionally terminating a potential life as opposed to intentionally extending a potential life.
If the latter is the case as in premies. then yes It should be granted every right
But so long as it lies within the mother. It is the mother who bears the burdon and the rights
BTW I am against Abortions after the second trimester.
Though to be honest if I had my way. I would limit abortions to about the first 18 weeks (or about halfway between conception and birth.)
If you cant make up your mind in the first hald of your pregnancy. you should be stuck with what you get.
That "choice" should only go so far.
I already explained why people are charged with double murder.
Dont kid yourself. Its not about the rights of the child but to provide an added charge that can be thrown onto the criminal.
Only the mother should have that right to decide if the child is born or not.
By commiting such an act. the murderer has denied the mother of the choice to have the child.
He has denied the mother of her life. And the the mother the option of having said child.
-
In any event.
and to get back on topic
Hurrah! For the SC Ruling.
I just think it should have went farther
-
Blackmun's papers were released.
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_saleton_mayjun05.msp
Blackmun didn't interpret the Constitution here; he created someting that wasn't there. Not the legacy I'd want.
Toad,
Have you ever noticed when you catch the left with their hand in the cookie jar you get the same answer: "So what if I cheated, I still got the cookie".
Notice how quiet the left is with the Heller decision today?
So now CA, MA, MD, CT and NY will tell their citizens "SO WHAT" it was 5 of Bush's lacky's who stold the true decision and your rights are what we tell you they are anyway!
And and....just wait till January 1, 2009. President Obama will declaire the 2nd amendmant a domestic WMD and a real and present danger to the United States..... and and.... pass a messiahanic decree from the mountain top...errr white house banning all private rights to citizens for their own protection......yeah the messiah will fix that peice of toilet tissue realll good this time........rotten constitution always gettin in the way of our teenie boper prono, drugs and sex and bribes from soros.... yeah .......he'll fix it really good this time!
-
Wrong, it's just as much my baby as it is hers whether it has been born or not. It takes 2 to make a baby not 1 and both parents should have equal rights in this.
And when you carry your first baby to term yourself.
I will agree with you on that.
Untill the child is born. The mother bears all the responcability, the burdon. and the pain.
thus she has all the rights.
Sorry you dont like it. Its just the way it is
-
And when you carry your first baby to term yourself.
I will agree with you on that.
Untill the child is born. The mother bears all the responcability, the burdon. and the pain.
thus she has all the rights.
Sorry you dont like it. Its just the way it is
You know I might agree with you on this point provided the woman isn't married. HOWEVER if a woman goes behind her husbands back and has an abortion with out his consent or him even knowing she is pregnant is wrong. The husband/father should have a right to decide what happens.
Again I have a very personal take on this issue because it happened to me.
-
You know I might agree with you on this point provided the woman isn't married. HOWEVER if a woman goes behind her husbands back and has an abortion with out his consent or him even knowing she is pregnant is wrong. The husband/father should have a right to decide what happens.
Again I have a very personal take on this issue because it happened to me.
And given the marriage circumstances I might be more inclined to agree with you.
On the other hand. what kind of a marriage is it if she didnt at least discuss the matter with you before hand.
But that sword of having he right to decide would have to swing in both direction.
What if you didnt want the child and felt just as strongly as you do about having it and she did want it?
who's say matters most?
-
I hate to add to the off-topicness (that even a word?) going on, but I will say this... The fact that the abortion topic is such as divisive, polarizing issue is reason enough to leave it up to the states and get this debate the heck out of the federal arena.
-
Gun Lobby Quickly Sues To Overturn Chicago Ban
The Illinois State Rifle Association filed a lawsuit with just that purpose in mind at 9:15 a.m.
The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
-
The pro-gun decision would have been better if it had been 9-0.
The thread would have been better if it had not been hijacked into abortion.
-
lol
-
The pro-gun decision would have been better if it had been 9-0.
Sure it would have, but how many SC decisions have been unanimous as opposed to split decisions?
-
I don't like severe cold.. I don't even like snow so I wouldn't know from first hand experience but I have never heard of any gun freezing up unless it was wet or the type of grease or oil was too heavy.
lazs
What I know, as in the Fin-USSR winter war,even the bolts on rifles would jam. The Russians, having their own stocks while the Fins were armed with imports (? Germany???) had bolts that were not as tight, leaving better space for the (thin) lube.
The Fins quickly caught that one up.
AFAIK, a big factor in the Germans having problems in the winter of 1941-1942 was all sorts of equipment not working due to the frosts.
Hence the question.
-
Just a thought on how abortion was fabricated then injected into the constitution without the amendment process. It can cover many subjects not original to the document.
Before RoeVwade abortion was available if the mothers life was indangered by the fetus. After RoeVwade you now have a womans choice by "conveinience" aborted into the document by judicial farce, or as Toads post shows, an outright collusion of ideology to rewrite the constitution without the permission of We the People.
Men had a choice historicly and legaly because of paternity being directly related to inheritance, legitimacy in society and societal morality. At one time it mattered to people to have heirs and heirs had much to loose by not being legitiment.
Fast forward to a womens right to choose because of "convienience". Until RoeVwade the language of the constitution maintained the sense that rights belonged to "We the People". No gender given stature over the other. The 19th amendment addressed a wrong by specifying women are also included in "We the People".
RoeVwade as a judicial fiasco violated the sacred importance to the foundation of the constitution of "We the People" by elevating a class of citizen above all other citizens when WOMEN were found to have the RIGHT to CHOOSE by convienience to kill their unborn children.
You now have the constitution descriminating against all other citizens in "We the People" by saying one gender has this greater right to decide life and death as a conveinience than even the judiciairy. Consider with this newly found status of women under the constituion, women are the largest group of care givers for the elderly and infirm. If women are now willing to kill the unborn as a convienence for themselves protected by the constitution, what is really stopping them from allowing those in their care from passing away as a convienience?
-
The pro-gun decision would have been better if it had been 9-0.
The thread would have been better if it had not been hijacked into abortion.
I agree even though I have been an active participent in the highjacking
I henceforth bow myself out of said highjacking and will no longer be a participent in the highjack in question in this thread. If anyone wishes to continue that debate I will be happy to in another thread created specifically for that discussion.
My apologies to all
-
There's a poll up on Yahoo!'s front page about the ruling. Here's the results' so far:
Do you agree with gun rights ruling? Results
Q. Thursday's landmark Supreme Court decision, which strikes down a handgun ban in D.C., says Americans have a Constitutional right to keep guns at home for self-defense.
The controversial pronouncement has been praised by the NRA for "providing relief for law-abiding Americans," and criticized by gun-control activists who say it may spark more violence.
Do you agree with the decision?
Yes. Americans should legally have the right to keep guns at home. 82%
No. The justices have dangerously misapplied the Constitution. 13%
It may be a Constitutional ruling, but I don't like it. 4%
I'm not sure. 1%
9510 votes
-
WASHINGTON - John McCain welcomed a Supreme Court decision invalidating a District of Columbia handgun ban. Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.
F.U. Jerk Off,
This post brought to you By a Bitter Gun Owner Clinging to my Religion
-
INcognito :cool:
-
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y70/BigTon/ibtl.gif)
-
Crockpot just got so owned he probably doesn't even comprehend it..
I didn't get owned on anything Snot nose..
I never said anything about women's right to an abortion being in the constitution. Guess what there also isn't anything about letting you have the right to become a post op tranny. You are free to do it as long as you can pay for it, there is no law that says that you can't become a shela-man.
Yet if the govt made a law stating you couldn't that would be a violation of your rights regardless if it's in the constitution or not. Same thing if you needed a heart transplant but the govt made a law saying you couldn't have one. This is essentially what the right wings tries to do on the abortion issue. So yes it is a "right" that has been taken away in many places by the so called less govt conservatives.
The constitution isn't a list of all rights, it is more of a restriction on the govt, keeping the govt from taking away very "specific" rights from you. It doesn't mean there are no other rights that arent listed.
-
Your a guy right? This thread has me doubting it. ;)
-
Well GotoRA with Crocketts reasoning on rights that exist unenumerated by the constitution, I'll be watching the SCOTUS blog site with breathless anticipation for the first abortion of an elderly because the woman decided caring for the parent an inconveinience. How many mothers in the 90's killed their children years after they were out of the womb and got off? ;)
When did the preamble get changed from Life, Liberty and Happiness to Happiness by Conveinience?
I might even offer a case of scotch to the scholor who can show me where the "right" of a woman to kill for personal conveinence is hiding in the foot notes of the constitution. We are all young now, but some day we will need a care giver to feed us our arsnic laden pablum.
-
I'm grabbing my guns and going to lake shore drive in chicago and shootin up a storm. :D Of course mayor Daily's thugs.....errr the chicago police will tackle me or shoot me down. :(
Why they feel that anyone owning a gun is a criminal, when most of us own them legally, is beyond me?
-
Well GotoRA with Crocketts reasoning on rights that exist unenumerated by the constitution, I'll be watching the SCOTUS blog site with breathless anticipation for the first abortion of an elderly because the woman decided caring for the parent an inconveinience. How many mothers in the 90's killed their children years after they were out of the womb and got off? ;)
When did the preamble get changed from Life, Liberty and Happiness to Happiness by Conveinience?
I might even offer a case of scotch to the scholor who can show me where the "right" of a woman to kill for personal conveinence is hiding in the foot notes of the constitution. We are all young now, but some day we will need a care giver to feed us our arsnic laden pablum.
I always love how conservatives are always all for rights for the unborn soon as conception, but soon as they pop out.. screw them can't do anything for them because it's socialism. At least if you guys had some sort of consistancy I could maybe understand where you are coming from.
-
I didn't get owned on anything Snot nose..
Everything you said after that just proves this:
Crockpot just got so owned he probably doesn't even comprehend it..
:D
-
Why they feel that anyone owning a gun is a criminal, when most of us own them legally, is beyond me?
Ultimately, they have more control over you if you have no means to fight back.
-
Crockett,
If socialism was such a great thing, then why have "We the People" as a majority not given the green light to congress and the states to abolish the current 250 year old constitution and adopt the new EU constitution, all 400 pages of in depth social justice, social programs and centralised social control?
Our constitution protects very specific rights in very direct language from government encroachment. The EU constitution is 400 pages of government encroachment and control of its subjects lives. If you want socialism, change the constitution.
Use the amendment process if you think new rights should be recognised. All it takes is the same effort getting ellected president does. But that also means you have to convince a majority of "We the People" that your "OTHER" rights are as valuble to "We the People" now and for the next 250 years as those in our current constitution.
So how many peoples signatures have you gotten on your pettition to lawfully amend the constitution?
-
INteresting.
-
Its NOT complicated. This is exactly what the framers of the Constitution meant...
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
Its not like the wording of the Constitution is all historians have to go on. They have countless sources of what the framers meant in the 2nd amendment, from OTHER writings, more concise statements, of the framers on the subject of arms. THE MEDIA JUST DOESN'T REPORT IT in interest of obfuscation and propaganda.
From Jefferson's statement above, is there any doubt what he meant? NO
-
There's a poll up on Yahoo!'s front page about the ruling. Here's the results' so far:
link please??
-
Is he mad at Barack or McCain?
-
Is he mad at Barack or McCain?
I'd have to say McCain
-
I think he's mad at barack.
Only thing I know for sure is that he's mad. :)
-
I looked on Yahoo and couldn't find any indication of a poll at all.
-
WASHINGTON - John McCain welcomed a Supreme Court decision invalidating a District of Columbia handgun ban. Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.
F.U. Jerk Off,
This post brought to you By a Bitter Gun Owner Clinging to my Religion
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/yossemitysam.gif)
-
yea,,, i wanted too vote but could not find it
-
Soooo, who is he mad at and why is he mad?
I see no reason to be mad. I must be missing some information.
:huh
-
WASHINGTON - John McCain welcomed a Supreme Court decision invalidating a District of Columbia handgun ban. Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.
F.U. Jerk Off,
This post brought to you By a Bitter Gun Owner Clinging to my Religion
agreed...but this thread'll probably make the skuzzmeisters hitlist in the am
-
Nothing wrong with a little regulation.
Barack seems to agree with McCain. Both agree the people have the right to bear arms in D.C.
-
I am not going to punt this and risk getting IN skuzzys doghouse. :D
-
I'd have to say McCain
-
He bolded and highlighted the sentence regarding Obama's sound byte, and signed the post with a reference to one of Obama's quips at "bitter, clingy, religious gun owners".
-
Perjoratives aside the OP is correct. Obama really did talk out of both sides of his mouth and even this represents a shift from his previous voting positions of taking the rights of citizens completely away.
-
He bolded and highlighted the sentence regarding Obama's sound byte, and signed the post with a reference to one of Obama's quips at "bitter, clingy, religious gun owners".
Oh, I now remember hearing about the "bitter,clingy" speech by Barack. I thought he was quoting something McCain said about obama.
So he really is mad at Barack.
That's pretty funny.
Thanks for clearing that up without having to think for me.
-
Crockett,
If socialism was such a great thing, then why have "We the People" as a majority not given the green light to congress and the states to abolish the current 250 year old constitution and adopt the new EU constitution, all 400 pages of in depth social justice, social programs and centralised social control?
Our constitution protects very specific rights in very direct language from government encroachment. The EU constitution is 400 pages of government encroachment and control of its subjects lives. If you want socialism, change the constitution.
Use the amendment process if you think new rights should be recognised. All it takes is the same effort getting elected president does. But that also means you have to convince a majority of "We the People" that your "OTHER" rights are as valuable to "We the People" now and for the next 250 years as those in our current constitution.
So how many peoples signatures have you gotten on your pettition to lawfully amend the constitution?
I never said socialism is a great thing but you so called right wing conservatives love to just toss out the catchy names for anything you disagree with. What I said is this, that you guys are always real big on forcing the mother to have the baby, yet you run to the hills and cry socialism when it comes time for the state to have to take care of the unwanted kid.
So I simply say, if you want to force the crack momma to have her kid, or the women who was gang raped, or the couple whom would rather get high than raise their kids.. Well then you need to be willing to own up and be part of the solution for that unwanted child. Quit crying when the kid grows up to be a criminal and a drain on society.
The simple fact is there are people out there that should not be parents, while of course there should be limits or rules set on the time frame up to a certain point, the women should be able to choose. You guys all love to cry about welfare moms yet don't want them, to be able to get rid of a unwanted pregnancy. Sorry but you can't have it both ways. So quit the socialism itching, because by taking away the women's right to choose, you make more welfare babies.
BTW you guys always love to cry about socialism, yet you are probably a product of our evil socialist school system. Your house loan, if you own a home is likely backed by a evil socialist govt insurance. You likely drive to work on the evil socialist highway system. ect..ect...
You guys cry about anything you don't like as if it's Karl Marx coming back from his grave, yet you never hear any complaints about all this stuff the govt pays for that benifits your own daily lives. How about having some consistancy or quit crying about socialism every time you turn around.
-
crockett, you are poo-pooing socialism as though it is a mirage that doesn't really exist. Unfortunately, the ideology is real. It could almost be termed a political 'movement' in this country. The liberal elements in the US increasingly want to put property and distribution of wealth into the hands of the central 'community." It certainly isn't what the founders had in mind.
-
You guys all love to cry about welfare moms yet don't want them, to be able to get rid of a unwanted pregnancy.
Abortion has been available a looooooong time. Have we seen any decrease in the number of welfare moms? I don't think so.
In fact, since the idiotic government system pays more if you have MORE illegitimate children, the opposite is true; they have MORE children in order to take more money from the poor working suckers of the US that actually pay taxes.
You might as well take that attempt to link abortion = less welfare mothers and put it in the comedy Hall of Fame.
-
You might as well take that attempt to link abortion = less welfare mothers and put it in the comedy Hall of Fame.
How can you be so mean spirited? :rofl
-
Crock-it is gonna have to stop soon. I`m running out of tissues.
-
Regarding the right's view of the unborn, and it's welfare after birth... I believe the mom needs to keep a damn penny between her knees until she can care for a child. After the child is born, she needs to take care of it.
Strafing, the "Right" isn't inconsistent about that, as you earlier posted. The commonality is responsibility for your own actions.
Don't have a kid unless you can care for it. Once you do have it, care for it. And don't expect everyone else to take care of it for you. Work 2 jobs if necessary. But don't suck up everyone else's tax dollars to feed your kids because you, as a single woman, can't keep your dang legs together & end up having 3 kids by 3 different men.
And one the same note, don't kill the kid before it's born just because it's too much of a 'burdon' for you to take care of. You made it... you take care for the child. Abortion is the crescendo of lack of personal responsibility... to an married woman, it allows her to hide infidelity. To a single woman, it allows her the continued freedom of casual sex without the follow-on responsibilty of a child.
-
For all his smokescreen, Obama does actually have a stong record on his desire for DC and Chicago style extrme gun control. From his serving on the board of the Joyce Foundation to his calling for a national end to concealed carry to his calls for bans on virtually all semiautomatic firearms and I believe handguns in general as well -- he has shown that his version of reasonalbe restriction is more in line with Fenty, Bloomberg and Daley than some moderate. Here are the specifics:
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm
Of course, as this thread points out he lacks the guts and conviction to actually take a stand on the issue.
Charon
-
For all his smokescreen, Obama does actually have a stong record on his desire for DC and Chicago style extrme gun control. From his serving on the board of the Joyce Foundation to his calling for a national end to concealed carry to his calls for bans on virtually all semiautomatic firearms and I believe handguns in general as well -- he has shown that his version of reasonalbe restriction is more in line with Fenty, Bloomberg and Daley than some moderate. Here are the specifics:
Of course, as this thread points out he lacks the guts and conviction to actually take a stand on the issue.
Charon
He's waiting until AFTER the election, when taking such a stand won't hurt hit chances to take the big office.
-
Obama is very strong anti-gun. Just as bad hes going to owe Richie Daley a big IOU if he gets elected.
Yeah right now hes eating barbecue, drinking Bud, watching NASCAR, and might even by filmed carrying a dead duck. But thats just to get elected. He's an IL. politician who was put in power by the Chicago crowd.
If your a sportsman, gun owner, or just plain believe we have a constitutional right to bear arms, then dont say I didn't warn you.
-
I looked on Yahoo and couldn't find any indication of a poll at all.
http://att.my.yahoo.com/ (http://att.my.yahoo.com/)
Sorry guys...It's 2 or 3 pages' back in the news already. Apparantly Wedding secrets' are more important than the 2nd.
-
Regarding the right's view of the unborn, and it's welfare after birth... I believe the mom needs to keep a damn penny between her knees until she can care for a child. After the child is born, she needs to take care of it.
Strafing, the "Right" isn't inconsistent about that, as you earlier posted. The commonality is responsibility for your own actions.
Don't have a kid unless you can care for it. Once you do have it, care for it. And don't expect everyone else to take care of it for you. Work 2 jobs if necessary. But don't suck up everyone else's tax dollars to feed your kids because you, as a single woman, can't keep your dang legs together & end up having 3 kids by 3 different men.
And one the same note, don't kill the kid before it's born just because it's too much of a 'burdon' for you to take care of. You made it... you take care for the child. Abortion is the crescendo of lack of personal responsibility... to an married woman, it allows her to hide infidelity. To a single woman, it allows her the continued freedom of casual sex without the follow-on responsibilty of a child.
Well the point being there are many people that don't care for their kids. This isn't lala land where everything is perfect.. There are many parents out there that shouldn't have kids. What do you say about the crack addicts that has her kid that turns out to be deformed? As I said before the right wing is all about rights for unborn kids but soon as they pop out it's time to run for the hills.
Anything after that well they simply say simply screw them. Hell All you have to do is look at George Bush's No Child Left Behind.. Republicans push bills like that, then they turn around and cry about inner city schools and whine about socialism. So no there is no consistency.. You guys are just like the liberals that get whined about day on this forum. The only consistancy is their whines.
The only difference is what you support and what you don't, because the actions are exactly the same. As I've said before, the only difference between the right wing and the left wing is who gets the money.
Besides that this is typical O Club BS.. The reason I brought the abortion topic into this argument, the same as bringing in the freedom of speech with the obscenity prosecutions, is to show the right wing is just as bad as the liberals they all cry about.
Several of the O Clubers here love to cry about liberals this or liberals that, but they turn a blind eye when their own right wing heroes do the same damn thing. On one side they cry about evil liberals wanting to take away their guns, then on the other side they support right wingers who try to take away your right to privacy and freedom of speech.
It's quite hypocritical to be honest. They are all for the constitution until it's something they don't like then of course there should be laws.
-
Regarding the right's view of the unborn, and it's welfare after birth... I believe the mom needs to keep a damn penny between her knees until she can care for a child. After the child is born, she needs to take care of it.
Strafing, the "Right" isn't inconsistent about that, as you earlier posted. The commonality is responsibility for your own actions.
Don't have a kid unless you can care for it. Once you do have it, care for it. And don't expect everyone else to take care of it for you. Work 2 jobs if necessary. But don't suck up everyone else's tax dollars to feed your kids because you, as a single woman, can't keep your dang legs together & end up having 3 kids by 3 different men.
And one the same note, don't kill the kid before it's born just because it's too much of a 'burdon' for you to take care of. You made it... you take care for the child. Abortion is the crescendo of lack of personal responsibility... to an married woman, it allows her to hide infidelity. To a single woman, it allows her the continued freedom of casual sex without the follow-on responsibilty of a child.
Crockett,
What you talk about concerning rights is socialism as a safety net to wash away all of your own imoral mistakes and anyone elses as a get out of jail free card.
I quoted texasmom because concervitives want social responsibility; and for you, us, or those welfare moms to pay a price for imoral mistakes. Putting men and women in jail for aborting their unborn children or scamming the state with unintended pregancies will dry up the use of both activities as matters of conveinience. Socialism breeds a lack of social responsibility for ones personal actions by removing any consiquences other then not turning to the State as your savior.
The true exceptions to the above who fall on real hardships not of their irresponsibility have always had support systems to help them recover.
-
What happened to the gun thread. Did it get lost in Crock-itness? :huh
-
Crockett,
What you talk about concerning rights is socialism as a safety net to wash away all of your own imoral mistakes and anyone elses as a get out of jail free card.
I quoted texasmom because concervitives want social responsibility; and for you, us, or those welfare moms to pay a price for imoral mistakes. Putting men and women in jail for aborting their unborn children or scamming the state with unintended pregancies will dry up the use of both activities as matters of conveinience. Socialism breeds a lack of social responsibility for ones personal actions by removing any consiquences other then not turning to the State as your savior.
The true exceptions to the above who fall on real hardships not of their irresponsibility have always had support systems to help them recover.
Sorry but conservatives don't want "social responsibility" if they wanted that, they would fund the damn schools and do something about the open boarders in this country. G Bush has been in the WH almost 8 years and what's he done about securing our boarders especially since 9/11? Not a damn thing except cutting the funding to the boarder patrol. Yep that's the "responsibility" party for yea.
The current crop of so called conservatives running the republican party are "religious conservatives". They have their religious agenda that has nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with trying to be the nations moral police. Hell, Responsibility isn't even in the Republican playbook, it's just another big word George Bush can't pronounce and the religious right use as a coin phrase to try to push their agenda.
The simple fact is pushing the abortion ban is the exact same thing as liberals who push gun bans and that's why I brought it into this topic. There is no difference in the two when you get down to it. Your right to privacy is in the constitution and that can be considered your body as much as your home. The govt should have no right to tell people what they can do or can't do with their own body.
You want to start justifying it because of this reason or that and it's the same thing as people justifying banning guns for this reason or that. The only difference is your moral opinion on each topic.
btw when I say "you" I don't necessarily mean you bustr. It's a open ended "you" lol
-
Sorry but conservatives don't want "social responsibility" if they wanted that, they would fund the damn schools and do something about the open boarders in this country. G Bush has been in the WH almost 8 years and what's he done about securing our boarders especially since 9/11? Not a damn thing except cutting the funding to the boarder patrol. Yep that's the "responsibility" party for yea.
Pssst, Bush is not a conservative.
-
Pssst, Bush is not a conservative.
Yea that's kinda the point.. and neither is the current Republican party.
-
Pssst, Bush is not a conservative.
But at least he's pro-America which is more than can be said for most Democrats, including Obama.
-
Not a damn thing except cutting the funding to the boarder patrol.
Can you back that up?
My cursory search shows that since 2001 the Border Patrol went from ~9,000 agents to more than 15,000 agents in 2007 and will increase in 2008, to at least double he 2001 figure. Seems like it would be hard to double the force while cutting the budget, so I call.
What's your source on that statement?
-
But at least he's pro-America which is more than can be said for most Democrats, including Obama.
Now that is just plain stupid.
-
I agree with MT. (My life just flashed before my eyes!)
I don't think the democrats are un-american. Indeed they are very concerned about our country and the welfare of its citizens. However, I do think that their approaches to solving the nation's security, economic, and social problems are terribly naive and impervious to rational criticism. While they like to point out the "dangers" of the policies of the radical right, such as the Patriot Act, which many dems signed off on, they refuse to acknowledge the equally great danger inherent in the policies of the radical left, such as the criminalization of "Hate Speech" and their support for the "Fairness Doctrine." Their leadership has also never learned the difference between a statement that is based on erroneous information, and one that is an outright lie, especially in light of the fact that these self-same leaders also believed that information when it was presented by the CIA, reached the same conclusions as the much despised Republican anti-christ. Their wrath should have been directed at the CIA....but someone else was a much more inviting target.
GWB has become such a lightning-rod that anything positive he has accomplished as president will not be discussed in a rational fashion until 20 years after he has left office....if even then.
-
crock-it... I believe that you will find that far from "welfare mothers" having "crack babies" being prevented by abortion it is women in the income group of 30K to 200K that are having all the abortions. the people who should be raising our children.. the rest are pretty much the 20-24 year olds who can't be bothered with birth control.. the babies aborted because of rape of possible deformity or extreme hardship or impregnation by aliens while they slept are extremely rare.. the low income and low lifes are having babies at record rates.
As for socialism.. I never met a government program that I didn't think would be better off with just the free market. The exception is the court and the army.
If it can't be solved with the court or the army then it is not something I want government involved in.
For schools I would say that the worst possible way to run schools is government, tax supported public schools excluding funding for all others.
I would rather trust rabbis to check my food than the feds. I would rather the insurance companies run safety programs than the government.
Socialism is evil and every government program save the justice system and the army is simply marx popping up out of his grave.
osamabama is a total socialist weenie and gun control freak who feels that the only people who should be armed are his bodyguards and the police. The police are on our side tho (not the political chiefs, the police)
lazs
-
I believe that many of the democrats in power now are very much anti American if you think of "American" as someone who believes as the founders did in limited government and personal liberty. I believe it is about 10 to 1 ratio but that for every unamerican republican you find you will find 10 socialist unamerican democrats in power or running the media.
I fear anyone with the power of life and death and freedom over me but of all the groups.. I fear the democrats the most.
I cant wait till chicago gets it's gun ban challenged.. can you imagine the convoluted and meaningless rant that osamabama will give when he is questioned on how he feels about that?
lazs
-
Sorry but conservatives don't want "social responsibility" if they wanted that, they would fund the damn schools and do something about the open boarders in this country.
We are all funding schools. We are spending a lot more than the value we are getting in return. More money will solve the problem of our declining educational standards no more than partial birth abortion on demand will slow teen preganancy or reduce the number of single mothers on welfare as Toad noted. Pride in oneself and accomplishments through personal responsibility is the only thing that will solve our social problems and this cannot be bought at any price. Though many have attained success through integrity with little support from their upbringing it is far more likely people will value the work ethic and shun handouts when their parents set this example. It's takes caring parents, at least one, to raise a child properly, not the state or a "village".
I agreee with you on the borders.
-
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/29/a_silver_bullet_for_obama/
Reminds of that classic scene in the Simpsons where Kang & Kodos (the aliens) run for office, with the classic platform of "Abortions for Some.... and None for Others!" (both sides cheer thinking they have won their cause).
-
Cutty say it don`t hang.
-
Shucks and Jives?
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Sounds like he's been very consistant.
-
Well I'll give up my guns when Obama, Polosi, and all the rest of them give up their armed body guards, armored limo's, and 24/7 hired protection and they decide to live where I do, just like a regular person. Until then, they can take their gun control ideas and stick em because they don't have a freaking clue.
It's my right and I'll use it how I see fit.
-
I just had a hysterical thought.
Obama is going to make everyone give up their guns except the inner city street gangs, which he cant force to do anything.
Think about it for a minute. :rofl
-
You know, for months now somethings been bothering me... Obama... the sound of his voice... the way he talks... it was like he was imitating someone, or at least sounding just like a celebrity that I couldn't place...
Finally it came to me today: Obama sounds EXACTLY like wrestler/actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
-
Shucks and Jives?
Sounds like he's been very consistant.
Yeah Shuck and Jive... you know: dance around the issues, doublespeak, empty rhetoric, being ambiguous on where he stands, be all things to all people etc.
-
See Rule #5
-
I'm just here to help the 2 of you with your lack of reading comprehension. In February Obama said it was an individual right that can be regulated, in April Obama said it was an individual right that can be regulated, in Julay Obama said it was an individual right that can be regulated.
It must really be tough to hate someone so much that you have to make stuff up about him.
And I know what Shuck and Jive means and I know why you used it too.
-
Shucks and Jives?
Sounds like he's been very consistant.
C'mon MT. You don't really want to see a long post on how he's suddenly changed his position.
Do yourself a favor; check this out: http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Here's a sample:
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."
You don't see a change there? He's had a religious experience; the political gods spoke to him in a dream and told him he had no chance to win if he was anti-gun. So, he's changed his spots. Next we'll see him out duck hunting like Laz says. He'll look just as stupid as Kerry did, too.
Want another?
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
-
Next we'll see him out duck hunting like Laz says. He'll look just as stupid as Kerry did, too
I hear Dick Cheney is looking for a hunting buddy.
-
Nothing you posted refutes what I wrote or what Obama has said in the debates or after the SC ruling.
He agrees that it is an Individual right, and that it is regulatable.
Nice try though.
-
Nothing you posted refutes what I wrote or what Obama has said in the debates or after the SC ruling.
He agrees that it is an Individual right, and that it is regulatable.
Nice try though.
How can it be an individual right if you are denied the ability to exercise that right? Sounds like political doublespeak to me.
-
I accept your apology.
Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
But of course he DID and his writing was on that questionnaire in 1996 in Illinois.
His anti-gun history is available and unquestionable. He has routinely supported bans on hand guns and even all semi-automatics which, thankfully, are now unconstitutional.
Didn't sign the amicus brief on Heller either. Forget the fig leaf that somehow he didn't know about it or wasn't asked.
However, he's converted now and that will last until he wins the election when he will return to his elitist view that "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion ".
-
Point is, he hasn't changed his stance since he began his run for POTUS, and digging up a 12 year old paper is hardly relevent. If you thought he was a flip flopper on this issue you should have said something in February when he said EXACTLY what he is saying now.
He hasn't changed his mind due to the Heller decision and that is the point of conversation now isn't it?
-
He hasn't changed his mind due to the Heller decision and that is the point of conversation now isn't it?
He believes that it's an individual right, but one that should have the lowest level of scrutiny so that the Govt. can regulate it out of common practice.
No CCW except for ex cops
No Handguns.
No semiautomatic rifles.
The ability to sue the gun industry out of existence for criminals that misuse their products (but not automakers or cell phone suppliers, etc.)
One gun per month
Close gun shops in Cook County
Voted against exempting from prosecution people who violate local hand gun bans in self defense cases.
Served on the board of the Joyce foundation, the driving force behind the gun control movement in the US
Long list. About as anti 2nd Amendment as you can get in a candidate. Gun control is a Democratic issue in Illinois so a lot of record on this for a change. And yet, for a guy who never met a pro gun control issue he didn’t like, who firmly believes you and I should not own handguns, he’s mighty quiet on the Heller decision.
This quote from his web site is remarkable
Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation.
Wow, which Constitution did he teach?
How about this Individual Rights position:
John Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, relates this chilling encounter in an opinion piece dealing with a questionnaire Obama and/or his staff answered for the Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI):
In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said “Oh, you are the gun guy.”
I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply responded that “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”
When I said it might be fun to talk about the question sometime and about his support of the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the gun makers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.
So yeah, Obama hasn't changed his mind since Heller. He still believes the 2nd is an individual right, undoubtedly a major mistake on the part of the framers, and a right that virtually no one should be allowed to exercise in all but the most limited manner. Unlike the rest of the BOR. Of course, like any typical politician he does not come out and tell the full story. I will give McCain credit for that, not that it will hurt him by doing so.
Charon
-
Was waiting to see what happened to this guy in texas. I think he did the right thing IMO.
http://streator.mediacomtoday.com/community/news/story/index.php?source=National&id=D91KVCD00&pd=20080701
Now i wonder if the FEDS will step in or not?
-
Was waiting to see what happened to this guy in texas. I think he did the right thing IMO.
http://streator.mediacomtoday.com/community/news/story/index.php?source=National&id=D91KVCD00&pd=20080701
Now i wonder if the FEDS will step in or not?
hopefully they'll let it rest. i really can't believe that someone is going to try to keep this going because he killed a couple criminals??
-
I think Joe Horn was wrong to do what he did but I support what he did. I don't think his life was in imminent danger BUT I respect the fact that he decided not to let a couple of turds get away with committing felonies. He even warned them multiple times not to do anything but they did anyway. If someone has a shotgun pointed at me they will have my full attention. These 2 turds got cocky and paid the price.
-
I don't know what happened at the scene just before he shot but.. I support his right as a citizen to be armed and go to his neighbors house.
I would hold a public official to a higher standard but as an individual.. I believe that he was within his rights to go over there armed and to make a call on if he was in mortal danger or not.. a cop for instance tho.. would be held to a higher standard and I would want proof that he was in grave danger.
lazs
-
In another state he would have gone to trial and gotten convicted.
-
He's lucky. The fact that both were shot in the back (read the article) would probably have gotten him not only a trial but a conviction anywhere else.
-
Here's the whole 8 minute police call http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0) hearing that shotgun click will send a shiver down your spine.
-
Whilst the scum he wasted will be no loss to society I think he is well in the wrong there.
- He went out there with the intention of killing them.
- He shot them in the back
Sure, they were breaking the law and low-life thieves deserve severe punishment but murdering them for stealing some replaceable crap from someone's house is over the top and way out of line.
Had the scumbags broken into HIS house and threatened him, sure.... fire away and aim for the head. The fact that he followed them out there and shot them in the back strikes me as being very, very wrong.
Just because this guy is an old fart he is 'scared' and gets away with two murders. If it was a young, single guy he'd be doing time. What a crock of chite.
-
Whilst the scum he wasted will be no loss to society I think he is well in the wrong there.
- He went out there with the intention of killing them.
- He shot them in the back
Sure, they were breaking the law and low-life thieves deserve severe punishment but murdering them for stealing some replaceable crap from someone's house is over the top and way out of line.
Had the scumbags broken into HIS house and threatened him, sure.... fire away and aim for the head. The fact that he followed them out there and shot them in the back strikes me as being very, very wrong.
Just because this guy is an old fart he is 'scared' and gets away with two murders. If it was a young, single guy he'd be doing time. What a crock of chite.
maybe he was wrong........but...this all never would've happened if these two hadn't brought it on themselves. they ILLEGALLY came into this country. one of them was deported, and came back. then they broke into a home. it's no one's fault but thier own. maybe if they all knew this could happen, they might think twice?
-
I just listened to that tape. That's murder. He knew what he was doing and he went out to 'stop' them. The officers were on the way and unless the time between the shootings and the follow up phone call was drastically shortened the officers were only just around the corner and would have got the thieving scum.
They would have been shipped out of America and you guys wouldn't have to worry about them or paying for their jail term.
He should have been convicted for that. Very poor judgement by the shooter and your justice system.
-
The discussion that is starting in this thread was pretty well hashed out in the original thread when the event occurred.
I seriously doubt anyone has changed there opinion. I haven't and mine's on record in the old thread.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has changed their opinion (and the reasons why they changed) as a result of this ruling.
-
maybe he was wrong........but...this all never would've happened if these two hadn't brought it on themselves. they ILLEGALLY came into this country. one of them was deported, and came back. then they broke into a home. it's no one's fault but thier own. maybe if they all knew this could happen, they might think twice?
Like I said, if they broke into his home and threatened him they deserved a face full of hot chit. Gunning down two scumbags from behind for stealing someone else's crap that is covered by insurance is not justifiable at all.
Lock them up, throw the book at them, seize their assets etc etc.... whatever.
Crimes against property do not deserve an execution. That's what it was, you can hear it on the phone call, he tells the operator he's going to shoot them goes outside and says "You're dead!" and kills them.
Had it been a crime against a person.... have at it, gun those pieces of watermelon down where they stand...... but it wasn't.
If you let watermelon like this slide where does it end?
Let me be clear in that I feel no remorse for the dead guys, they were scum and they put themselves in that poisiton. In fact, I actually think it's pretty funny... criminals wave their rights when they commit the crime. They have no one to blame but themselves for their deaths. However, that doesn't make their murder right. Even if he only got two years for manslaughter or something.... He deserved that. You can't kill someone (let alone two) over a bloody stereo and get away with it clean.
If he'd taken them down but not killed them... maybe a slap on the wrists instead but he didn't even get that and he killed the salamanders! :lol
I'm not particularly concerned about it, you guys can do what you like. However, I would be concerned about living in a community that considered his actions acceptable.
-
So shooting people in the back as they try to run is now "self defense?"
How about if we retitle this thread "Man gets away with murder?"
-
It kinda sounds to me like he outright murdered these two. Even under other circumstances property aint worth killing over.
I would hold a public official to a higher standard but as an individual.. I believe that he was within his rights to go over there armed and to make a call on if he was in mortal danger or not.. a cop for instance tho.. would be held to a higher standard and I would want proof that he was in grave danger.
Laz sometimes you even astound me. There are times you say something so ignorant its just astounding.
This fool outright murdered those two. Tho I aint surprised he wasnt indicted down there.
Very good job by the dispatcher tho. Trying to keep this fool in the house.
-
No thieve's life is worth more than the property he is stealing. If we started shooting ALL thieves, we'd be in better condition as a country.
Instead, in most states, as long as the thief doesn't actually threaten you, you have to let him illegally take your stuff.
-
This guy should be equipped and paid to be working the US/Mexican border.
As far as I'm concerned, with this sort of performance under his belt, the entire country should be counted as his front yard and he should be thanked for performing the service.
If we had more Horns on our side, the Mexicans would think twice before continuing their 'reconquest'.
-
In Texas you have the right to defend yourself, your property and come to the aid of the public.
The two were in the country illegally to begin with, not to mention the crime they were engaged at the time. Nuff said.
If some criminal has a problem with the outcome, I`d suggest another state or stay in your own country.
-
In Texas you have the right to defend yourself, your property and come to the aid of the public.
The two were in the country illegally to begin with, not to mention the crime they were engaged at the time. Nuff said.
If some criminal has a problem with the outcome, I`d suggest another state or stay in your own country.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat."
It makes more sense if you mention the sheep in the first part as well.
-
They would have been shipped out of America .
they may or may not have gotten the scum. but they would've come right back. one of them had already been deported according to the article. there probably would've been legal battles to not deport them.
they brought it on themselves.
-
No thieve's life is worth more than the property he is stealing. If we started shooting ALL thieves, we'd be in better condition as a country.
Instead, in most states, as long as the thief doesn't actually threaten you, you have to let him illegally take your stuff.
My state of Ohio has joined the ranks of those with a castle doctrine.You no longer have a duty to retreat.The governer signed the bill and it takes effect in about two more months.
http://www.freeconstitutionblog.com/2008/06/ohio-passes-castle-doctrine.html
-
Cap, I said they left themselves open to whatever came of the situation they put themselves in. They bought and paid for what they got. Their execution, whilst a benefit to your society, was not justified.
No thieve's life is worth more than the property he is stealing. If we started shooting ALL thieves, we'd be in better condition as a country.
Instead, in most states, as long as the thief doesn't actually threaten you, you have to let him illegally take your stuff.
I'm inclined to agree with you on this but how do you go about it? Let the people kill the thieves? I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that would be a good idea.
-
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat."
It makes more sense if you mention the sheep in the first part as well.
I think not. :)
-
So shooting people in the back as they try to run is now "self defense?"
How about if we retitle this thread "Man gets away with murder?"
shooting CRIMNALS in the back
-
Cap, I said they left themselves open to whatever came of the situation they put themselves in. They bought and paid for what they got. Their execution, whilst a benefit to your society, was not justified.
I'm inclined to agree with you on this but how do you go about it? Let the people kill the thieves? I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that would be a good idea.
It'll be real simple. If you get caught stealing from someone, that someone can shoot you.
-
as the economy continues to go down the toilet, there will be more theft...
and with it more justice hopefully.
As for the two losers in this story, we do not have to worry about repeat crime as it should be with most "convictions"
give the guy with the shotgun a medal, his own radio/cable tv show - inform the losers of the world they may DIE if caught by the right ppl and watch them think twice about their actions... as it is now, the slap on the wrist is a joke none of them fear.
-
I get it. So if its two worthless illegal aliens its OK to shoot them in the back over property. At least as long as the shooter wasnt the Police right? Course nobody knew if they were worthless illegals until after they were blowed up right?
That was a 3 shot shogun. Did you hear how long that 3rd shot was after the 2nd? This was a flat out execution. And you guys are hypocrites. I wonder how many of you cold blooded Internet killers go to church? Yathink God cares if they were illegal aliens?
I hope the G goes after this nitwit.
-
I get it. So if its two worthless illegal aliens its OK to shoot them in the back over property. At least as long as the shooter wasnt the Police right? Course nobody knew if they were worthless illegals until after they were blowed up right?
That was a 3 shot shogun. Did you hear how long that 3rd shot was after the 2nd? This was a flat out execution. And you guys are hypocrites. I wonder how many of you cold blooded Internet killers go to church? Yathink God cares if they were illegal aliens?
I hope the G goes after this nitwit.
God doesn't care if they were illegal aliens or not. He cares that they were willing to use terror and force to take what was not theirs.
-
doesn't matter what they were - legal or not, white/black/yellow/green, male/female/from san fransico, old/young.. once they are "thieves" they are fair game
if i try to steal something from the guy next door, it would not surprise me if i got shot - in the face or back it would not matter.
it's easy, don't take what is not yours and you will not get shot for stealing...
around here you'll get shot for trespassing- heck with stealing anything
-
Tough call. I imagine I would have done things differently, I hope, but one never knows until that door has opened on them how they will react. I guess it just goes to show that being a theif can get you shot to death by someone defending the property you are trying to steal.
-
It'll be real simple. If you get caught stealing from someone, that someone can shoot you.
No it isn't- the message this sends is that if you see someone committing a crime in public you can execute them. This has nothing to do with protecting ones castle or self defense- it was a cold blooded killing- it's that simple.
-
ok, here's my outlook.
in all honesty, i don't know that i would've killed them. but this is also why crime is soo rampant in this country. the police do thier job as best as they can....or are allowed to do it. then the lawyers take over. they get the bad guys off. no one fears getting caught anymore because the entire friggin system is neutered. so this guy killed those two criminals. if this happened more, criminals would think twice. the problem with htis is that things could get bad fast because of people doing this too.
i do know that when i go away, my neighbors watch my home for me as i do theirs. the most i've done is to try to detain the person in question after calling the police. it was probably pretty stupid of me, but i was trying to do for my neighbor what i though he'd do for me. protect his home. the police are spread too thin, and have too much bs to deal with to be everywhere all the time.
do i feel sorry for these guys? HELLLLLL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! had they not illegally entered the country, and illegally entered this guys property, and illegally tried to take his things, they'd probably still be alive. they brought this on themselves. there is NO ONE else to blame. only themselves.
had they been apprehended, they'd have been deported. then they'd have come back again. then what if they did the same thing..rob a house, but this time they kill someone innocent. then what? would everyone cry that they shouldn't have been allowed back in?
they were two pieces of crap that were breaking the law every single day 24/7. they took it up a notch. they paid the price. maybe the next ones will think twice.
i know i sound cold putting this up here, but i just never could understand defending criminals that were caught in the act. it's a large part of why i know i could never do what our police forces do, and i kinda admire and pity them at the same time.
enough rant..i need to get some work done.........
<<S>>
-
I get it. So if its two worthless illegal aliens its OK to shoot them in the back over property. At least as long as the shooter wasnt the Police right? Course nobody knew if they were worthless illegals until after they were blowed up right?
That was a 3 shot shogun. Did you hear how long that 3rd shot was after the 2nd? This was a flat out execution. And you guys are hypocrites. I wonder how many of you cold blooded Internet killers go to church? Yathink God cares if they were illegal aliens?
I hope the G goes after this nitwit.
I'm thinking not a single person here has all of the relevant facts either way.
Good way to wish eternal damnation on him though and prove you're not a hypocrite. :lol
-
I'm about as pro second amendment/individual liberty as it gets and I've studied this case as much as one can with the information available. While it was a legal shoot, I don't think it was a necessary shoot. I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. If this man has a soul/conscience, it will eat away at him for the rest of his life.
-
Good way to wish eternal damnation on him though and prove you're not a hypocrite. :lol
I don't wish eternal damnation on the guy, but I DO hope he gets sued in civil court for wrongful death.
-
I don't wish eternal damnation on the guy, but I DO hope he gets sued in civil court for wrongful death.
for wrongful death of two leeches on our society?
-
for wrongful death of two leeches on our society?
Oh, absolutely. I hope the guy gets O.J.'d.
Speaking of hypocrites though what if Mr. Horn's neighbor had lost his house keys, and Mr. Horn, mistaking his neighbor for a burglar, shot him in the back? I heard the 911 call, and there was less than a second before he said "Don't move" and the gun fired, so such an accident could have happened- But would you excuse Mr. Horn his mistake? After all, he thought he was protecting his neighbors' property, right?
-
God doesn't care if they were illegal aliens or not. He cares that they were willing to use terror and force to take what was not theirs.
It doesnt matter. And dont speak for God. He's already spoken about murder and so has the Law.
Some of you guys need to listen to the audio tapes from 911. This guy was pissed off some non-whites were breaking into his neighbors house, a house he knew was unoccupied, and he was going to be judge, jury, and executioner about it. He even said he was going to kill them. He ran out of the house and shot them both in the back over a property crime while Police were coming.
The Police were there shortly after he executed them. That block would have been surrounded and the offenders captured. Ive done it myself a thousand times. If it was the Police who shot these two like that you'd all be screaming for their badges.
Like I said. "Hypocrites".
-
He's already spoken about murder
I missed the memo--did he spell out his opinions in water vapor up in the sky or did he do a connect-the-dots job with stars?
Please advise.
-
Oh, absolutely. I hope the guy gets O.J.'d.
Speaking of hyppocrites though what if Mr. Horn's neighbor had lost his house keys, and Mr. Horn, mistaking his neighbor for a burgular, shot him in the back? I heard the 911 call, and there was less than a second before he said "Don't move" and the gun fired, so such an accident could have happened- But would you excuse Mr. Horn his mistake? After all, he thought he was protecting his neighbors' property, right?
Would the neighbor crawl out of his own window and cross into Mr. Horn's property with a shotgun pointed at him and instructions being shouted?
or would he just ring the doorbell?
Gotta love conjecture and bad analogies.
-
"What If" he didn't have a shotgun, and the thieves saw him, and didn't want to be identified, so they decided to kill Mr. Horn with the crowbar?
Either way he did what he felt needed to be done, and the courts ruled that what he did was within the law.
What's freaking so many people out i think, is that it was caught on tape, and maybe they mentally can't handle it. Maybe in that same situation alot of people wouldn't have even called the cops in the first place.
-
"Bad analogies?" You just gave a guy a pass who shot two guys in the back. What if- in a similar situation- the shooter makes a mistake and shoots a kid sneaking in or out of the house? Does that shooter get a free pass also?
-
I don't understand why everyone is doing the "what if's" with this one. A grand jury found him NOT GUILTY of any wrong doing in this case. They heard the tape, they heard the testimony, and probably heard much more than you or I will ever hear about this case, and they pronounced it a justifiable shoot. He acted within the laws of the state of Texas and his local laws.
He's alive, his neighbor didn't loose any property, and 2 criminals are gone for good. He stood up for what was right and here are a bunch of bleeding hearts that think that criminals should be treated better than that. Well too bad.
-
osamaba saying that he believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms is about like ron paul saying that he believes in a womans right to choose so long as she is of age and.. that age is 65
An individual right is not a right if government has unlimited power to restrict.
McCain is quite clear on what restrictions he thinks should apply and they are few.
osamabama is quite clear on the restrictions he would apply and they would be far worse than anything we have ever had before the latest decision.
Charon points out osamabamas posititons and they are all the most restrictive we have ever seen... worse than the brady bunch comes up with.
lazs
-
Texas justice?? One grand jury member, when asked to comment on their ruling, said simply "Remember the Alamo."
-
"Bad analogies?" You just gave a guy a pass who shot two guys in the back. What if- in a similar situation- the shooter makes a mistake and shoots a kid sneaking in or out of the house? Does that shooter get a free pass also?
What if they ran back to their car, took pistols out of the glovebox, and opened up at his house as they peeled out? We can play the "What If" game all day. It will never effectively validate your opinion.
-
Isn't texas one of the few states it is LEGAL to use deadly force in defense of propertie?
I agree with this law by the way. Thieves are scum. They deserve what they get if they are stupid enough to steal in Texas.
Hell years ago there was a case of a repo man getting shot while repoing a car. Owner walked into his front yard and shot the guy with a hunting rifle. The repo man croaked. I remeber seeing a sheriff on TV being interviewed over it, and he said, in this case it was tragic, but in most cases the law is a good law.
The didnt prosecute the guy if I remeber right.
-
From everything I have read, under current Texas law it seems to be a legal shoot, that does not make it a good shoot.
I have problems with shooting folks involved in property crimes in the back, maybe the next time someone gives me a hot check I should track them down and shoot them in the back.
From listening to the tape it was obvious that the guy really wanted to shoot those guys, dispatch telling him to stay in the house, naw I'm gonna shoot em!!!
This guy does have something in common with OJ.
shamus
-
home invaders should die like the rats they are, all of them.
-
Texas justice?? One grand jury member, when asked to comment on their ruling, said simply "Remember the Alamo."
I'm surprised being Texans they didn't say remember Goliad. March 27, 1836. 342 Texans who had surrendered to Santa Ana under a white flag were ordered executed en'mass at Goliad Texas.
Once the columns reached their selected location, the Mexican soldados formed into two ranks on one side of the captives. The unarmed Texians were then fired on at point-blank range only a few hundred yards from the fort. The wounded and dying were then clubbed and stabbed. Those who survived the initial volley were run down by the Mexican cavalry. Fannin's men wounded in the Battle of Coleto were shot or bayoneted where they lay. Colonel Fannin was the last to be executed, after seeing his men butchered. Their bodies were stacked into piles and burned.
Funny how south of the border criminals seem to treat american citizens in similare ways as Goliad while commiting crimes on U.S. soil to this day. Many american citizens to this day are terrified of nonwhite criminals in Texas and the Southwest because of how brutaly they\ilegal aliens murder, assault and rape our citizens. But hey, I guess all of our children and women who have been and still are getting raped and murdered by these kinds of scum got what they deserved.
So Carral what if only a 6 year old girl had been home when these two broke in? If you do some background research it seems these two choir boys were in Texas to hook up with an "eligal alien" home break in ring who were known to engage in extream violence. Maybe that came out in the grand jury hearing.
I'm still curious what we are going to say some day to all of OUR raped and murdered, children and women? Come on all you heros and champions of right and wrong. Evil wins ONLY because good men do NOTHING.....
-
home invaders should die like the rats they are, all of them.
you got sumpin against rats?? :rofl :rofl
seriously.....most direct and true statement so far :aok
-
I missed the memo--did he spell out his opinions in water vapor up in the sky or did he do a connect-the-dots job with stars?
Please advise.
Hilarious. I was going to post something similar, albeit much more crude / profanity laced.
The truth is that God hasn't told us what he wants. People have told us what God wants. And until the people who tell us what god wants gain NO POWER whatsoever, I will not even begin to consider them being anything but fascists.
-
This man should be given an award for what he did!! In the back or not.....these guys deserved every piece of lead
that is in them...This will set and example for the other thugs out there that there is Justice, and its not just the law.
The thing that most of you don't realize is these guys are all over...if they would have gotten caught, they would sit
in jail on my hard earned tax dollars....these guys know that they will just get a slap on the wrist for breaking into a house.
To hell with them and all the thugs that ruin innocent peoples lives.
-
Give the guy a medal. Two less scumbags to be using up air and eating good food. Plus, no additional contamination to the gene pool.
-
Give the guy a medal. Two less scumbags to be using up air and eating good food. Plus, no additional contamination to the gene pool.
Well...I give up. For a minute there I thought we could have a discussion about how far is going too far in protection of fellow citizens' (and neighbors) property, but since the majority here can't see past the simplistic view of "They got what they had coming to them" instead of debating what happens once we start sanctioning vigilante actions it's pointless to continue discussing this.
From now on I'll restrain my posts to those threads where one of you is threatened by an African American or an Illegal Alien gang and you pull your gun and I'll give you a big ol' "Atta Boy" at the end of your bullcrap post because you, with your gun, defended Truth, Justice and the American Way of Life, or perhaps I'll ooh and aah when you post a picture of a piece of crap Chevy and declare it the fastest car in the world, and maybe I'll chime in with the Godspeed, Blue Skies and <<<S>>> response when you accidentally run over your cat- but as far as actually discussing an issue based upon its validity?
It can't happen here- 80% of you have no grasp of your own reality, let alone the reality of what is. You are Sheeple.
-
As far as Im concerned, the criminals in question got what they deserved and Mr Horn should be commended. Why should our tax $$$ be wasted to house and feed such filth?
Being a resident of Illinois I can say with a good degree of certainty that if Mr Horn has done that here, sadly, he would have been convicted of murder and the deceased scum would probably mourned......by the liberals in the Chicago area.
-
He's lucky. The fact that both were shot in the back (read the article) would probably have gotten him not only a trial but a conviction anywhere else.
I read that they werent sure if he shot them in the back. He shot em w/ a 12 gauge shot gun. It would've made a real mess on both sides.
Plus, he did the right thing. If he called the police, they woulda gotten the illegals, shipped them back to Mexico and then they woulda been right back where they were.
:aok
-
Being a resident of Illinois I can say with a good degree of certainty that if Mr Horn has done that here, sadly, he would have been convicted of murder and the deceased scum would probably mourned......by the liberals in the Chicago area.
Had he done that in Australia he'd be sentenced to life in prison. No one would have given a watermelon that they were black and no one would mourn their death but he would still be in prison.
I'm not particularly fond of humanity in general, to be honest, but in order to effectively live with the plague of rats called people some laws need to be observed. Premeditated killing, regardless of the 'worth' of the people being killed cannot be allowed. How long will it be before a loved one gets mistaken for a thief and shot where they stand? How long will be before people start killing people they don't like and staging it as a theft? "It's ok officer, he stole my car stereo".
You're all putting yourselves on a slippery slope by praising the murder of fleeing thieves. People cannot be trusted to make decisions in heated situations. People are, by and large, impossibly stupid and the second you start allowing these idiots to kill on a whim it will be you who will suffer when the only people you've cared about start getting killed in 'mistaken' circumstances.
Like I've said... I agree that these guys were scum and they were entirely the masters of their fate but to think, even for a moment, that people should be allowed to execute people they see stealing other people's crap.... well, excuse my rudeness, but that's f-king ridiculous. The naivety of entertaining that idea astounds me.
If you want thieves dead start asking for the death sentence for thieves. If you want to stop illegals from being deported and coming back again to re-offend introduce the death sentence for illegals who commit crimes in your country. I wonder how many of you would subscribe to a ruthless nation like that? Instead you would prefer on-the-spot executions performed by pissed off, old guys? Let's use a little logic here instead of letting emotive responses dictate our opinions.
-
Had he done that in Australia he'd be sentenced to life in prison. No one would have given a watermelon that they were black and no one would mourn their death but he would still be in prison.
I'm not particularly fond of humanity in general, to be honest, but in order to effectively live with the plague of rats called people some laws need to be observed. Premeditated killing, regardless of the 'worth' of the people being killed cannot be allowed. How long will it be before a loved one gets mistaken for a thief and shot where they stand? How long will be before people start killing people they don't like and staging it as a theft? "It's ok officer, he stole my car stereo".
You're all putting yourselves on a slippery slope by praising the murder of fleeing thieves. People cannot be trusted to make decisions in heated situations. People are, by and large, impossibly stupid and the second you start allowing these idiots to kill on a whim it will be you who will suffer when the only people you've cared about start getting killed in 'mistaken' circumstances.
Like I've said... I agree that these guys were scum and they were entirely the masters of their fate but to think, even for a moment, that people should be allowed to execute people they see stealing other people's crap.... well, excuse my rudeness, but that's f-king ridiculous. The naivety of entertaining that idea astounds me.
If you want thieves dead start asking for the death sentence for thieves. If you want to stop illegals from being deported and coming back again to re-offend introduce the death sentence for illegals who commit crimes in your country. I wonder how many of you would subscribe to a ruthless nation like that? Instead you would prefer on-the-spot executions performed by pissed off, old guys? Let's use a little logic here instead of letting emotive responses dictate our opinions.
Most people can not be trusted to make any decision. What makes you think the decisions of 12 people would be any more correct than that of the original shooter.
-
Pretty good post Xasthur.
For all, as I pointed out, this entire thread has become a rehash of the initial thread generated when the incident occurred.
No one has changed their mind.
Time to let it rest.
-
just out curiousity, what do his neighbors think? in particular, the one whose house was being robbed?
was anything printed about their opinions? ....
and also..i don't remember reading anthing if these gus were armed?
<<S>>
-
Pretty good post Xasthur.
For all, as I pointed out, this entire thread has become a rehash of the initial thread generated when the incident occurred.
No one has changed their mind.
Time to let it rest.
i think i must've missed the original...this is the first i've heard of this.....
-
Short thread, same arguments.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,230251.30.html
-
What I said then is still what I believe..
"shooting in the back is poor form unless... the guy is still a threat.. it would be really poor form to not shoot him in the back if he was just running for cover in order to reload.
It is always a judgment call..
lazs"
Cops and government need to be held to a slightly higher standard but for most of us.. if we still feel the guy is a threat then it is dumb to not shoot him.. You are gonna feel pretty stupid if he is just running for cover and to get a better shot at you.
I don't know about this case in particular and no one here does.. only the guy who did the shooting does.. he is the only witness. I would not like to take two lives simply because they were burglars and were running away when confronted. I would tell them to stop.. if they did.. fine. If they did not and I thought they were not a threat.. I would not shoot em I don't think. If they had any kind of a weapon in their hand I would shoot em.. running away or not.. or.. if they had threatened me.. it is a judgement call.
lazs
-
the 911 call was 8 minutes long? where were the police?
-
Shooting in the back or not, I wouldn't care. I'd drop em' like a bad habit! Only exception is I'd aim for their arses.(http://usera.imagecave.com/uptown41/stupid_gun.jpg)
-
the 911 call was 8 minutes long? where were the police?
That's why normal everyday citizens don't need to be armed but big shot politicians like the Mayor of Atlanta need a full security screen when announcing the gun ban on public transportation to the the ATL airport.... in direct contravention to a recent law just passed by the GA legislature that allows carry on public transportation.
That instant police response will save you every time.
-
What I said then is still what I believe..
"shooting in the back is poor form unless... the guy is still a threat.. it would be really poor form to not shoot him in the back if he was just running for cover in order to reload.
It is always a judgment call..
lazs"
Cops and government need to be held to a slightly higher standard but for most of us.. if we still feel the guy is a threat then it is dumb to not shoot him.. You are gonna feel pretty stupid if he is just running for cover and to get a better shot at you.
I don't know about this case in particular and no one here does.. only the guy who did the shooting does.. he is the only witness. I would not like to take two lives simply because they were burglars and were running away when confronted. I would tell them to stop.. if they did.. fine. If they did not and I thought they were not a threat.. I would not shoot em I don't think. If they had any kind of a weapon in their hand I would shoot em.. running away or not.. or.. if they had threatened me.. it is a judgement call.
lazs
if he didn't shoot, they most likely would've gotten away. if not they'd have beend eported eventually. they most certianly would've come back into the country. the next time they did something they most likely would've had a better weapon than a crowbar. they very likely would kill someone in their next robbery. that sounds like a threat i think.
-
carrel... don't get all hissy fit on us..
sure, some here are on the other side are having their own version of a hissy fit but..
the fact is that every situation is different.. xastur and you seem to short sighted on this.
You guys seem to be saying that all burglars are just that.. crooks looking to steal some stuff and sneak off into the night.
That is not the case all the time.. the crooks we have these days are also into hurting and killing and raping if they get the chance.. not all but.. enough. some of them have no respect at all for human life.
So how do we know in the middle of the night if the crook is a "good crook" who is merely trying to support his family with your stuff or... the bad crook who would be just as happy to have people home so he could kill and maim and rape along with taking your stuff? It is late and it is dark and people have invaded your..or your friends house...
It is a judgement call.. you can't tell what will happen but.. it is better to be safe than sorry.
In my opinion... people who break into houses know that others in their line of work are scum who kill and maim.. people who break into houses know that they could get shot by the homeowner (that is why so few break into occupied homes here unlike england)
They know it and they still do it. soooooo... it is pretty certain that they are into extreme risks.. extreme behavior... You can't treat them like any other person you meet on the street.. they are simply not like you and me.
In england and other places it is not like that.. burglary seems to be a business where the rules are pretty clear... you hide under the bed and we steal and wreck all your stuff and no one gets hurt.
I would rather shoot a few "harmless" burglars than to end up with that situation.
but again... just because he has turned his back on you does not mean he is not a threat in your home in the middle of the night.
lazs
-
if he didn't shoot, they most likely would've gotten away. if not they'd have beend eported eventually. they most certianly would've come back into the country. the next time they did something they most likely would've had a better weapon than a crowbar. they very likely would kill someone in their next robbery. that sounds like a threat i think.
You have absolutely no information to base that conclusion upon. Don't be silly.
xastur and you seem to short sighted on this.
You guys seem to be saying that all burglars are just that.. crooks looking to steal some stuff and sneak off into the night.
That is not the case all the time..
I've already said that deadly force would be more than justified had the guys broken into his house. I'm not some hippy trying to protect human life, thieves are vermin and I understand that you guys have serious problems with scum like the two who got killed. If your personal safety is threatened, have at it and paint the walls with them.... I'm fine with that. The criminal has already waved their 'right' to fair treatment by threatening another person.
The crux of this issue is that these two rats didn't threaten another person. They broke into an empty house and confronted no one. The 911 operator said it perfectly "There ain't no property worth killing for".
My point all along has had nothing to do with using deadly force when threatened it has only been to do with average citizens taking the law into their own hands and killing over property theft without threat to a person. Execution for stealing someone's jewellery is not warranted and cannot be allowed. Surely everyone can see the pandemonium that would unfold should this sort of behaviour be allowed?
-
Charon points out osamabamas posititons and they are all the most restrictive we have ever seen... worse than the brady bunch comes up with.
lazs
..............and that`s saying something.
-
Laz, simple situation:
You see 2 clowns break into your neighbor's unoccupied house, grab the plasma TV and head off down the street. Do you shotgun them in the back if they refuse to stop on your "halt" command?
Of course not.
There needs to be an imminent threat to yourself or to others to justify the use of deadly force in my set of morals.
I'm not killing someone over minor property that is easily replaced.
Dear Cod, I've seen some on here sounding like they'd shoot someone for stealing a cooling cherry pie off their window sill. There has to be some common sense here.
I'm as pro-gun as anyone and you know it. But some of the comments here are crazy.
-
Well said, mate.
-
exactly.. again.. it is gobbly gook....
osamabama doesn't make me as a gun owner feel that he is on my side.. I can tell you all that I am for a womans right to "choose".... with some restrictions....
You then vote for me based on my abortion stand and then I pass a bill that says that these "restrictions" include the one that says no woman under the age of 65 should be allowed to have an abortion unless she is in congress or the the house or a high ranking official.
osamabama believes in the right to keep and bear arms but he wants to keep em out of the wrong hands...
guess what? you have the wrong hands.
lazs
-
Toad... I would not go to a house that was being broke into without being armed.
I would not shoot someone in the back in said house if they were running away and I felt that they were no threat to me.
If I did feel that they were a threat I would shoot em... front back or sideways.
I cant make it any more simple than that. I can't second guess what went on at the house in question. there is only one witness.
lazs
-
I think a few here may have missed this........................
"and when the two men came onto his yard and threatened him, Horn defended himself"
You buy the ticket, you get the ride.
-
Would I shoot someone breaking into my house? Yes.
Would I shoot some stealing from my neighbors house while they were away? No.
Do I feel one bit of pity for the two that did get shot for doing so? Not one bit.
-
You have absolutely no information to base that conclusion upon. Don't be silly.
the one guy was deported in 1999. he came back.
other than that, i'm doing the same as others...and playing the ""what if"" game. i think it also said they came into his yard. could it be possible that they were going to attack him because he hadn't raised his gun....and they thought he wouldn't.......then when he did, they turned to run(but too late). they had no rights anyway.
-
There is a real time recording of the event made from the shooter's telephone.
Horn: He’s coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I’m sorry, but he’s coming out the window.
Dispatcher: Don’t, don’t — don’t go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?
Horn: They just stole something. I’m going after them, I’m sorry.
Dispatcher: Don’t go outside.
Horn: I ain’t letting them get away with this s--t. They stole something. They got a bag of something.
Dispatcher: Don’t go outside the house.
Horn: I’m doing this.
Dispatcher: Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house.
Horn: I’m sorry. This ain’t right, buddy.
Dispatcher: You’re going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don’t care what you think.
Horn: You want to make a bet?
Dispatcher: OK? Stay in the house.
Horn: They’re getting away!
Dispatcher: That’s all right. Property’s not worth killing someone over, OK?
Horn: [curses]
Dispatcher: Don’t go out the house. Don’t be shooting nobody. I know you’re pissed and you’re frustrated, but don’t do it.
Horn: They got a bag of loot.
Dispatcher: OK. How big is the bag ... which way are they going?
Horn: I’m going outside. I’ll find out.
Dispatcher: I don’t want you going outside, Mr. Horn.
Horn: Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.
Dispatcher: Don’t go outside.
Horn: [yelling] Move, you’re dead!
[Sound of shots being fired]
What imminent danger to himself or others justified him leaving his home and going out to confront these guys?
-
I think that's its high time that some civilians got a piece of the 'people blasting' pie.
Cops are professional killers (yes, they protect and serve, and we love them for it, but let's face it, one of the ways in which they protect and serve is by blasting people in various parts of their anatomy--including the head!), and citizens are not, and this makes the citizen an underdog in the people-blasting business.
Here's a scenario:
A cop comes home to his wife:
"How was work?" She asks
"Same old same old... Blasted some people" He responds
And they have dinner with no further discussion
A citizen comes home to his wife, having, unbeknownst to her, blasted a person that day.
"How as work?" She asks
"Not bad... Blasted a guy, though. That was a change of pace."
"Wow!" She exclaims, and proceeds to make out with him aggressively.
See the difference?
Cops can blast people all day every day, but let the citizens have a piece of the pie too. Heck, if a cop wants, he can sit around and manage IT guys for a day if he wants.
-
I think a few here may have missed this........................
"and when the two men came onto his yard and threatened him, Horn defended himself"
You buy the ticket, you get the ride.
From the actual tape, it sounds like Mr. Horn went out of his house and threatened the two thieves as they entered his yard after exiting the neighbor's house.
If he had stayed in his house and shot them had they entered HIS house, I'd have no problem with it at all.
Is there any evidence that they posed an imminent danger to him as they entered his yard? Were any weapons found on the bodies? None of us has all the information but it seems reasonable to me that had Horn stayed in his house they'd either have gone on and left or died entering his home. Either situation is better than what did happen.
I think incidents like this are fodder for the antis simply because it is NOT a clear cut case of imminent danger. It provides "proof" of their claims that CCW will turn the US into the Wild West for many of the sheeple that listen to Handgun Control or the Brady Bunch.
It was not a righteous shoot. It is questionable at the very best. That is not what we should be supporting as gun owners.
-
the one guy was deported in 1999. he came back.
That provides no link to coming back with weapons to kill. I'm not calling you out to be a bastid or anything, I'm just saying that you're talking baseless watermelon at the moment. :)
Toad nailed it. Even if the guys did approach him they certainly changed their mind and tried to high-tail it. They were shot in the back, he didn't shoot them as they tried to attack him.
In fact,the information available states that the third shot you hear on the call was the kill shot on the second rat as he ran away. That's execution, not self-defense, however you look at it.
-
There is a real time recording of the event made from the shooter's telephone.
What imminent danger to himself or others justified him leaving his home and going out to confront these guys?
Texas law allows him to use force to stop the burglars, and deadly force if he believes using lesser force exposes himself to possible harm. Applicable statutes (see 9.42 2, 3, 9.43 2B):
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
-
snip
It was not a righteous shoot. It is questionable at the very best. That is not what we should be supporting as gun owners.
Speak for yourself. Texans have decided otherwise (and lots of us are gun owners ;))
-
Texas law allows him to use force to stop the burglars, and deadly force if he believes using lesser force exposes himself to possible harm. Applicable statutes (see 9.42 2, 3, 9.43 2B):
The whole point is that using no force what so ever would have left him in no danger at all.
The shooter exposed himself to danger by confronting them. As fas as I'm concerned, Mr Horn was the aggressor in the situation. Sure, the other guys were doing the wrong thing but Horn confronted them, not the other way around.
-
That provides no link to coming back with weapons to kill. I'm not calling you out to be a bastid or anything, I'm just saying that you're talking baseless watermelon at the moment. :)
Toad nailed it. Even if the guys did approach him they certainly changed their mind and tried to high-tail it. They were shot in the back, he didn't shoot them as they tried to attack him.
In fact,the information available states that the third shot you hear on the call was the kill shot on the second rat as he ran away. That's execution, not self-defense, however you look at it.
ya, it could be baseless, but like i said...i'm doing like others in here and throwing another ""what if"" out there.
it might have happened that way or it might not have. we'll never know. the important thing is that this guy sent a message to criminals....mainly don't come eff around in my neighborhood.
as for the third shot? it may have been. or it may have been that he was so stressed out and wound up, that he just kept going. he did sound fiarly well stressed when he came back o the phone. in the stress of the moment, he could've realy thought that #2 was gonna come back for him.....again, we'll never know. but.....at least 2 more rat bastages off the streets.
i'd still like to see something from his neighbors. in particular the one whose house was being robbed. is there any good reason we haven't seen that yet/?
<<S>>
-
The whole point is that using no force what so ever would have left him in no danger at all.
Sure, the other guys were doing the wrong thing but Horn confronted them, not the other way around.
as well he should have. there should be more people in the country willing to risk stopping criminals. the police cannot do it without our help.
<<S>>
-
If he had stayed in his house and shot them had they entered HIS house, I'd have no problem with it at all.
That`s what is wrong with society as a whole now. People don`t get involved to stop BS such as this. Time for crap like this to stop. The police are not personal body guards , nor or they personal protectors of your private property. Responsibility falls to us initially. Hiding in the closet is not the Texas way and certainly not that of a friend and neighbor. The cats knew what they were doing and the risk they were taking. They lost!
Is there any evidence that they posed an imminent danger to him as they entered his yard?
Evidently there is . He was no billed. When they entered his yard they were trespassing. While they were on the neighbors property they were trespassing. It was obvious what they were doing. There is not even a question on that.
They certainly weren`t coming over to pick up the "Welcome Wagon" package.
Were any weapons found on the bodies?
What does weapons have to do with it? Have you seen the picture of this guy?
He couldn`t defend against one I expect, not to mention two.
They were trespassing in the act of a crime. Good enough for me.
None of us has all the information but it seems reasonable to me that had Horn stayed in his house they'd either have gone on and left or died entering his home.
Yeah, he could have just ignored them, let them steal what they wanted and been on their way to their next break in. Not acceptable in my books. It is also known that cats such as these get braver and more aggressive as time passes and as long as they get by with their crimes. By Texas law, he had every right to do what he did. I applaud his actions.
They bought the ticket, they took the ride.
-
as well he should have. there should be more people in the country willing to risk stopping criminals. the police cannot do it without our help.
<<S>>
Exactly!!! Way to many people in this country will see a crime being committed, and as long as it's NOT being committed against them, they just look the other way because they don't want to get involved. At most they MIGHT call the police but even that is doubtfull.
Mr Horn saw a crime being committed against his neighbors property. A neighbor he knew to be out of town and being a good neighbor he did what he had to do to stop the criminals.
Yeah he could have stayed inside and no one would have gotten hurt. Instead he decided to act and I applaud him for doing so. Maybe if more people started looking out for their neighbors and get involved when they see a crime being committed this country wouldn't be going down the crapper like it is.
-
Yeah he could have stayed inside and no one would have gotten hurt. Instead he decided to act and I applaud him for doing so. Maybe if more people started looking out for their neighbors and get involved when they see a crime being committed this country wouldn't be going down the crapper like it is.
You're labouring under the assumption that the people who will take that action aren't all complete morons. The fact that this happened at all is a clear indication that this is most certainly not the case.
One episode of the Simpsons covers this pretty well. :lol
(http://www.mundosimpson.com.ar/imagenes/promocards/1f09.gif)
-
You're labouring under the assumption that the people who will take that action aren't all complete morons.
If joe horn is a moron in your eyes, then i'd rather take the side of a moron over an imbecile... or 2. :aok
-
carrel... don't get all hissy fit on us..
lazs
LOL, I'm not- I just realized this thread is like playing cards with my sister's kids. We don't play bridge, or canasta- we play "go fish."
Sheeesh- look at the title of this thread- "Another win for self defense"....about two guys who got shot in the back. If the author doesn't know what self defense is, and the Junior Sheeple don't know what self defense is, then how can we discuss it?
Pointless.
CAP1, do you have any threes?
-
Speak for yourself. Texans have decided otherwise (and lots of us are gun owners ;))
I always speak for myself alone.
I stand by what I've posted in this thread.
-
That`s what is wrong with society as a whole now. People don`t get involved to stop BS such as this. Time for crap like this to stop. The police are not personal body guards , nor or they personal protectors of your private property. Responsibility falls to us initially. Hiding in the closet is not the Texas way and certainly not that of a friend and neighbor. The cats knew what they were doing and the risk they were taking. They lost!
Follow this to it's logical extension. Horn didn't know what if anything they had taken from the neighbor. Would you kill a man for breaking your neighbor's window?
Would you kill a man for stealing a neighbor's TV set?
Would you kill a man for stealing a neighbor's garden hoe?
Would you kill a man for stealing a neighbor's loaf of bread?
Where the hell do you guys draw the line at life vs property? Would you kill a man for stealing a neighbor's stick of Doublemint?
When they entered his yard they were trespassing. While they were on the neighbors property they were trespassing.
Would you kill a man for walking on your yard without permission? For trespassing?
It was obvious what they were doing. There is not even a question on that.
No, it is not obvious. Yes there is a question. What did they steal? Do you know for sure they stole any item? They did apparently break and enter but I've seen nothing other than that. Do you know for sure they threatened Horn? I haven't seen anything proving that. Do you know for sure if they aggressively move towards him or did he aggressively move to block their exit path?
There's a shirtload of stuff that is not known at this point.
What does weapons have to do with it?
It relates to the threat. With no weapons it's much harder to see this as righteous self-defense. As I said, the question is open on whether they were just trying to leave and he intercepted them or whether they moved to confront him. Weapons would make the latter more plausible.
Yeah, he could have just ignored them, let them steal what they wanted and been on their way to their next break in.
Except that he did not ignore them. He called 911 and the cops arrived pretty much right after he shot them. It's quite possible that calling 911 was all that was necesary for the cops to catch them.
By Texas law, he had every right to do what he did.
I realize it was technically legal. IMO, it wasn't moral.
Tell me, if some minority kid runs up, grabs a pot of your petunias off the front porch and takes off are you going to kill him? You'd be legal in Texas you know.
[/quote]
-
Had he done that in Australia he'd be sentenced to life in prison. No one would have given a watermelon that they were black and no one would mourn their death but he would still be in prison.
I'm not particularly fond of humanity in general, to be honest, but in order to effectively live with the plague of rats called people some laws need to be observed. Premeditated killing, regardless of the 'worth' of the people being killed cannot be allowed. How long will it be before a loved one gets mistaken for a thief and shot where they stand? How long will be before people start killing people they don't like and staging it as a theft? "It's ok officer, he stole my car stereo".
You're all putting yourselves on a slippery slope by praising the murder of fleeing thieves. People cannot be trusted to make decisions in heated situations. People are, by and large, impossibly stupid and the second you start allowing these idiots to kill on a whim it will be you who will suffer when the only people you've cared about start getting killed in 'mistaken' circumstances.
Like I've said... I agree that these guys were scum and they were entirely the masters of their fate but to think, even for a moment, that people should be allowed to execute people they see stealing other people's crap.... well, excuse my rudeness, but that's f-king ridiculous. The naivety of entertaining that idea astounds me.
If you want thieves dead start asking for the death sentence for thieves. If you want to stop illegals from being deported and coming back again to re-offend introduce the death sentence for illegals who commit crimes in your country. I wonder how many of you would subscribe to a ruthless nation like that? Instead you would prefer on-the-spot executions performed by pissed off, old guys? Let's use a little logic here instead of letting emotive responses dictate our opinions.
If you break into someones home, you should be shot dead without questions. If one doesn't want to be killed, then avoid going into someones home without permission, very simple. :aok
-
Again with the lack of forethought. Surely we can get past the fun and satisfaction of saying "Yeah, let's kill all these motherfkrs when they break into my house" and consider the consequences of allowing this to become a widespread practice?
Or is that too complex?
-
CAP1, do you have any threes?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
go fish!
-
You're labouring under the assumption that the people who will take that action aren't all complete morons. The fact that this happened at all is a clear indication that this is most certainly not the case.
One episode of the Simpsons covers this pretty well. :lol
(http://www.mundosimpson.com.ar/imagenes/promocards/1f09.gif)
Yeah your right, I wouldn't want you getting involved if all you have to back your statement up with is a Simpsons episode.
-
Its quite evedent that many of you have not be victims in this type of thing. How many times
have guys like these, gotten away from a crime and comback to steal, kill, and rape again? Desperate people do desperate things....these guys
were no good...if they would have gotten away, or even arrested....they would do the same thing again,
maybe taking a life next time.
Put yourself in the shoes of people that have lost loved ones because of guys like these...you should
think differently about what Mr. Horn did. He just saved some other innocent family...maybe yours..from alot
of heart ache.
The problem in todays society is the bleeding heart liberals go to light on this type of crime....and the crooks know it.
Over populated jails makes stealing a minor infraction and a slap on the wrist. so what happens..they do it again and again and again.
I read the othe day that there are 500 and something death row inmates in Kalifornia....how much does it cost us to keep these
looney tunes in jail?? Millions...And lberal Kalifornia wont kill them after they ruined many inocent lives.
-
snip
Tell me, if some minority kid runs up, grabs a pot of your petunias off the front porch and takes off are you going to kill him? You'd be legal in Texas you know.
I know its rude to respond to a question without an answer, sorry.
But, consider this - thieves start their careers somewhere. If they die as a consequence early in their career, how many community members are spared being victims?
In your example, would deadly force be a proportionate response? For me, personally, no. I'm very happy with Texas law as it stands now. I'll just have to be willing to accept what my fellow Texans decide in each circumstance (both the actors involved, and those who judge their actions).
In particular, I'm glad Mr. Horn acted as he did. Who's to know in the case of burglars which ones might be violent or non-violent? I like the decision to not take any chances that they may have already done violence, or may do so in their next criminal action. If you catch 'em red-handed, then try to cause them to be arrested, shoot 'em if that's not possible. Its what Horn did and its the right thing to do in your own neighborhood, IMO.
-
Again with the lack of forethought. Surely we can get past the fun and satisfaction of saying "Yeah, let's kill all these motherfkrs when they break into my house" and consider the consequences of allowing this to become a widespread practice?
Or is that too complex?
And just what would the cosequences be if criminals KNEW that they stood a very good chance of getting shot and killed by a homeowner if they break into a house? Sorry but I'm just not seeing this downside your talking about other than it violates your sense of moralty.
-
Follow this to it's logical extension. Horn didn't know what if anything they had taken from the neighbor. Would you kill a man for breaking your neighbor's window?
Would you kill a man for stealing a neighbor's TV set?
Would you kill a man for stealing a neighbor's garden hoe?
Would you kill a man for stealing a neighbor's loaf of bread?
Where the hell do you guys draw the line at life vs property? Would you kill a man for stealing a neighbor's stick of Doublemint?
Would you kill a man for walking on your yard without permission? For trespassing?
No, it is not obvious. Yes there is a question. What did they steal? Do you know for sure they stole any item? They did apparently break and enter but I've seen nothing other than that. Do you know for sure they threatened Horn? I haven't seen anything proving that. Do you know for sure if they aggressively move towards him or did he aggressively move to block their exit path?
There's a shirtload of stuff that is not known at this point.
It relates to the threat. With no weapons it's much harder to see this as righteous self-defense. As I said, the question is open on whether they were just trying to leave and he intercepted them or whether they moved to confront him. Weapons would make the latter more plausible.
Except that he did not ignore them. He called 911 and the cops arrived pretty much right after he shot them. It's quite possible that calling 911 was all that was necesary for the cops to catch them.
I realize it was technically legal. IMO, it wasn't moral.
Tell me, if some minority kid runs up, grabs a pot of your petunias off the front porch and takes off are you going to kill him? You'd be legal in Texas you know.
What would I do?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
The line is drawn EXACTLY where someone thinks they have the right or ability to take something that is not theirs. Not one criminal's life is worth more than the smallest stick of gum he thinks he (or she) can steal.
As for trespassing? Probably not, unless the man's actions were dubious or well declared. If they are not well declared, I'd probably threaten first.
Though I am glad you are CLEARLY stating that only minorities are criminals. We know that's what you think, but to have you say it makes our job much easier. Past that, I'd probably wing the kid the first time.
-
Well, laser, wouldn't it be funny if someday you called your buddy, asked if you could borrow his garden hoe and he said "yeah, but I'm going to be out shopping, just go into the garage and take it."
You hang up, drive over to his place, go into his garage, take the hoe and get shotgunned in the back by an alert neighbor.
That'd be a hoot, wouldn't it?
Jeebus Cripes.
-
Well, laser, wouldn't it be funny if someday you called your buddy, asked if you could borrow his garden hoe and he said "yeah, but I'm going to be out shopping, just go into the garage and take it."
You hang up, drive over to his place, go into his garage, take the hoe and get shotgunned in the back by an alert neighbor.
That'd be a hoot, wouldn't it?
Jeebus Cripes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the two deadbeats (zing!) not stop taking stuff / come for the shooter after being warned?
-
Hornet, don't give me that watermelon I have contributed sound opinion to this thread and that was a joke.
Kaw, a tough stance on crime is required but vigilante murder will solve nothing. For example, do you think that this sort of thing won't breed retribution killings?
You guys are so keen on trusting 'your fellow Texans' with the executioners axe....
What is all this nonsense about preventative killings? Are you guys really so self-absorbed that you actually believe that your judgement is that good that you can know that you're doing society a favour by stopping the 'career of a criminal' before it gets started?
I bet you all bang on about Hitler and Stalin and how wrong they were. They were killing people for the good of their society according to their judgement. How is yours any better? It's not and you're a moron if you think otherwise. If you're going to buy into murder for the purification of society, don't discriminate. If you all had your way hundreds of thousands of petty thieves would be dead.
So if that's the way of it then, when do we organise the criminal holocaust?
Before you continue on this path consider the scale these murders would reach.
-
I'll just have to be willing to accept what my fellow Texans decide in each circumstance (both the actors involved, and those who judge their actions).
So if your fellow Texans decide killing to save a pot of petunias is acceptable and laudable, you're fully in support? Your choice. I'd speak out against that but that's just me.
I like the decision to not take any chances that they may have already done violence, or may do so in their next criminal action.
Hmmm... criminal action. Are you with Jackal1 on shooting them for simple trespass? You see two shady looking guys crossing a neighbor's lawn headed for his back yard best go ahead and shoot just to be safe, nip their lawlessness in the bud and preserve the community from being later victims of these two?
OK, enough with that.
As I said, there has to be some common sense applied in these cases. IMO, the shoot-em-on-site crowd in here is not exercising any.
Horn had the cops on the way; he was not threatened while watching from his upstairs window. He forced this confrontation and he killed two men by shooting them in the back.
If you all think that reflects well on gun owners, advances the cause of the 2nd Amendment and will lead to greater gun freedom (incorporation, CCH, Open Carry) i would have to strongly disagree.
[/quote]
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the two deadbeats (zing!) not stop taking stuff / come for the shooter after being warned?
I will correct you. That scenario has been offered but not proven.
This is a digression from your response to my post where you said you'd kill a man taking your neighbor's garden hoe. Wouldn't it be funny if you found yourself in the scenario I offered to you?
I mean, Laser, killed by a neighbor that didn't know the stranger had permission to borrow the garden hoe. :aok
I know you'd be ok with it as you died because, after all, it's what you would do yourself.
-
And just what would the cosequences be if criminals KNEW that they stood a very good chance of getting shot and killed by a homeowner if they break into a house? Sorry but I'm just not seeing this downside your talking about other than it violates your sense of moralty.
Hornet, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You put the axe in the hands of your garden variety moron citizen and you get this:
Well, laser, wouldn't it be funny if someday you called your buddy, asked if you could borrow his garden hoe and he said "yeah, but I'm going to be out shopping, just go into the garage and take it."
You hang up, drive over to his place, go into his garage, take the hoe and get shotgunned in the back by an alert neighbor.
That'd be a hoot, wouldn't it?
Jeebus Cripes.
Don't bother trying to say that this sort of thing wouldn't happen. It would.
But what... that would just be collateral damage? Worthwhile loss? What if it was your son or daughter or wife that got shot by some trigger-happy idiot who was protecting society from what they thought was a 'brazen thief'.
Forethought.
-
Hornet, don't give me that watermelon I have contributed sound opinion to this thread and that was a joke.
Kaw, a tough stance on crime is required but vigilante murder will solve nothing. For example, do you think that this sort of thing won't breed retribution killings?
You guys are so keen on trusting 'your fellow Texans' with the executioners axe....
What is all this nonsense about preventative killings? Are you guys really so self-absorbed that you actually believe that your judgement is that good that you can know that you're doing society a favour by stopping the 'career of a criminal' before it gets started?
I bet you all bang on about Hitler and Stalin and how wrong they were. They were killing people for the good of their society according to their judgement. How is yours any better? It's not and you're a moron if you think otherwise. If you're going to buy into murder for the purification of society, don't discriminate. If you all had your way hundreds of thousands of petty thieves would be dead.
So if that's the way of it then, when do we organise the criminal holocaust?
Before you continue on this path consider the scale these murders would reach.
You're ultra foolish if you think the judgement of the masses is any better than the judgement of a single person. It wasn't just Hitler who wandered around the streets shooting all jews and untermensch. It was hundreds of thousands of people doing it.
It wasn't just Stalin killing the tens of MILLIONS of political dissidents. It was his millions of supporters.
Given all of what we have seen of history, it is downright childish to think that a group of people has better judgement than one single man.
-
Given all of what we have seen of history, it is downright childish to think that a group of people has better judgement than one single man.
Damn! We could have save billions over the years if we had just started with one man juries way back when!
-
Toad, you are wrong and if you were my neighbor ......well lets just say you wouldn't want to live near me too long. Us folks in the country do things a little bit different. We lookout for and help are neighbors because it's just common respect and descenticy. The crimials in this case have no respect for someones home and probably the lives in that home. Nor would they have any for you or yours.
Too many people in this country turn the other way when dope dealers are pushing their drugs to our kids or stealing us blind, because they "don't want to get involved". You sir are part of the problem. If you sat and watched as my home get invaded and did nothing, I'd replace my stuff with your stuff the very second you left for work.And crap in the sink on the way out.
-
There is a HUGE differance between breaking a window, crawling into a house and then start tossing bags full of stuff back out the window like in the Horn case, vs Laz pulling into the driveway in his car, getting out, opening the garage door and walking back out with a garden hose in his hand. You also have consider one little fact of human nature here. If Laz's friend knows him well enough to tell him to just go over and get the hose while he's out to the store it stands to reason that Laz has been over there many times and most likely KNOWS the neighbors as well, at least by sight.
I'm not on the bandwagon of shoot first ask questions later. I've caught several crooks breaking into my garage and truck. Never had to fire a shot, but I was armed and I was able to detain them until the police arrived. However if they had made any move the wrong way I was ready to pull the trigger. In both of my cases I had them cornered with no where to go except through me and Mr. Remington 870.
A sensless death is something to regret but I'll NEVER shed a tear over someone who was killed while committing a crime against anouther person, and YES robbery falls into what I consider to be a personal attack.
-
All of you guys who think Mr. Horn is wrong, don't live in Texas.
The duely elected government of Texas gave the citizens of Texas the law they wanted in response to criminal scum like Mr. Horn shot. So far it seems the law is working. Bad guys are dieing. It's a traditional Texan kind of attituide.
Too many of those responding to this thread in outrage want to continue the kinds of government that encourages criminals to think they are a special class of citizen who can act with impunity against the law abiding citizenry of where ever they call home. You will argue that in the end it's the best for all sides "just in case an innocent gets blown away". In that case don't move to Texas. The citizens of Texas have decided criminals who violate their property or threaten their person have made the choice to stand outside the law and accept the conciquences.
In the face of Mr. Horn's 911 open call, a grand jury of his peers "We the People" found his actions within Texas law.
To you LEO's in this thread who are pronouncing Mr. Horn a murderer, or his actions simply wrong. Do you ever wonder why so many citizens have a low opinion of LEO's in america. We are tired of being assaulted, raped, robbed, murdered and everything else that goes along with crime. After all there are 400 million of us citizens while only 1 million LEO. If we had 50 million LEO then you might have a chance at protecting most of us. But then you LEO would be a domestic standing army of 50 million with the massed power to dictate law to "We the People".
In Texas "We the People" voted. Are "We the People" ultimatly the law, or are you LEO's the Law?
-
Xasthur Point taken and respect your opinion...but.....this crime thing is really out of hand and the law is
not doing what it takes to stop it. So we have to. I am so sick of seeing people suffer because some no brain scum
does whatever they want And gets away with it
Again put yourself in the victims shoes.....how does it feel to work so hard from something and
then have it taken from you. People are scared, it should not be that way in this country.
-
You're ultra foolish if you think the judgement of the masses is any better than the judgement of a single person. It wasn't just Hitler who wandered around the streets shooting all jews and untermensch. It was hundreds of thousands of people doing it.
It wasn't just Stalin killing the tens of MILLIONS of political dissidents. It was his millions of supporters.
Given all of what we have seen of history, it is downright childish to think that a group of people has better judgement than one single man.
Uhh... mate... What do you think a bunch of Texans walking around killing criminals will be?
The Girl Scouts? Try the SS in plain clothes, buddy.
Hahah, holy hell man, you actually made me laugh with that one.
-
So if your fellow Texans decide killing to save a pot of petunias is acceptable and laudable, you're fully in support? Your choice. I'd speak out against that but that's just me.
No, I already said that personally I wouldn't consider killing a child for stealing a pot of flowers a proportionate response. If it happened in my community, I would speak out against the act, urging greater restraint.
What I said is that I'll trust my community members to use their judgment. I'm more willing to risk that they err in excess than to risk that criminals may be able to act unimpeded because of the law being too restrictive.
Hmmm... criminal action. Are you with Jackal1 on shooting them for simple trespass? You see two shady looking guys crossing a neighbor's lawn headed for his back yard best go ahead and shoot just to be safe, nip their lawlessness in the bud and preserve the community from being later victims of these two?
Simple trespass? No. That would be both illegal and out of line IMO.
But if they are exiting his house and its obvious they are acting criminally, I am OK with them being confronted by a neighbor, and shot if they refuse to stop and wait for police. That's what happened in Mr. Horn's case, and I believe he acted acceptably.
OK, enough with that.
As I said, there has to be some common sense applied in these cases. IMO, the shoot-em-on-site crowd in here is not exercising any.
Horn had the cops on the way; he was not threatened while watching from his upstairs window. He forced this confrontation and he killed two men by shooting them in the back.
If you all think that reflects well on gun owners, advances the cause of the 2nd Amendment and will lead to greater gun freedom (incorporation, CCH, Open Carry) i would have to strongly disagree.
I didn't address the issue in those terms. Once again, I tell you I am speaking to how I like the law in my community to be, and how Mr. Horn handled himself in this incident.
I'm sure you're right in saying that the "anti's" will seize on this as an example of why their cause should be advanced. The chips will fall where they do.
-
Xasthur Point taken and respect your opinion...but.....this crime thing is really out of hand and the law is
not doing what it takes to stop it. So we have to. I am so sick of seeing people suffer because some no brain scum
does whatever they want And gets away with it
Again put yourself in the victims shoes.....how does it feel to work so hard from something and
then have it taken from you. People are scared, it should not be that way in this country.
I agree with wholeheartedly and I support what you're saying 100%. Crime isn't right and swift punishment should be taken against those who don't respect the society they live in. Killing people will only cause more problems, though. Fix the justice system before you go murdering criminals. Tougher penalties, more scrutiny for lawyers, review laws, introduce laws... whatever it takes. I agree that your legal system is a joke and that's what the people need to stand up to. For argument's sake, even if it is the case that America starts executing people for breaking and entering (which is what many people in here are suggesting) at least have the state do it after a swift investigation.
-
Cleared up.
-
the fact is in my case........in anyone forces their way into MY home to steal, vandalize, or threaten bodily harm to me or a member of my family their well being is in jeopardy. I will protect what is mine.
If again someone forces their way into my neigbors home to do the same as stated above I will first call the Police and run to my neighbors home to assist my neighbor if home....or not at home.
IMHO those who violate the rights of others have surrendered their rights.
-
My apologies, I did misread that and I have edited the post accordingly (before I read your response, if that makes a difference).
Working overtime and sick as dog at the moment. Going to bed any minute now.
Whilst I misread your post your argument is still very weak. Those groups of people were acting on one man's judgement. Just because he didn't pull the trigger himself doesn't mean he wasn't responsible.
The SS were an extension of Hitler's will and as good as his trigger finger.
I'm having a really hard time believing that so many of you are willing to trust your average citizen with the lives of those around you. I know I wouldn't. People are so impossibly ignorant, emotive and weak that terrible decisions are inevitable. When those terrible decisions result in death is it really worth it?
-
Fix the justice system...fix the health care system....fix the wealfare system...fix the jail system...fix this fix that,
It will never be fixed and that is why as individuals we have to try and fix things ourselves..one way we do that is
looking out for our fellow man...the good ones of course. and the bad have to be dealt with...that way we all live in PEACE.
Its sad when we feel uncomfortable leaving our kids out to play or walking down the street in fear. I should not be that way.
I'm sure Mr. Horns actions will make other scums thing Twice about violating our lives!(At least in Texas)
God Bless Texas...wish all states were like it!!
-
I think a few here may have missed this........................
"and when the two men came onto his yard and threatened him, Horn defended himself"
You buy the ticket, you get the ride.
Jackel brings up a good point
and from the transcript...
Horn: [yelling] Move, you’re dead!
[Sound of shots being fired]
For those who may not understand these you words I'll give you the longer version as I understand them.... " if you MOVE, YOU'RE DEAD"
Something else I'd like to point out from the way I look at it,
A lot of you guys are saying that he just opened fired on them.
Mr. Horn did give them an option and in that brief second between him issuing that option and the gunfire, they moved or were moving while he said it.
I think he was very clear on letting them know they had an option. They chose not to take it.
-
I'm not saying that an average joe is infallible. I'm merely saying that it's foolish to think that a group of average joes is infallible merely because they are in group form.
Stupid people will always be stupid people. However, a group of people will almost always drop down to the lowest common denominator.
-
I'm not saying that an average joe is infallible. I'm merely saying that it's foolish to think that a group of average joes is infallible merely because they are in group form.
Stupid people will always be stupid people. However, a group of people will almost always drop down to the lowest common denominator.
I am not suggesting that a group is automatically more intelligent than an individual but simply being an individual doesn't make one smarter either.
I believe most people are inherently stupid and will make bad choices when put in a heated situation. Hospital emergency rooms are full of them on any given day of the week. Even if it's a 50/50 mix of ignorant fools to cool, calm and collected people (which I think is very generous and not at all likely) are they sort of odds you want on the other end of a gun?
-
This thread exhibits such stark polar disparities that I feel that nothing further will come of this. Those who think Horn made a poor choice aren't swayed by those who think otherwise and visa versa.
All I can say is that I'm glad that I live in a country where guns are not widespread and shooting murders are relatively uncommon. Violence breeds violence and violence is seldom controlled and directed in a focused manner.
I do hope that, if things progress to such a stage, the killings do have the desired effect of deterring criminals. I fear for "y'all" that it won't, but one can only hope, I suppose.
Best of luck with it :salute
-
This thread exhibits such stark polar disparities that I feel that nothing further will come of this.
Agree to disagree and please feel welcomed to stop in for a beer or two. :aok
-
Sounds perfect, mate. :cool:
-
I am not suggesting that a group is automatically more intelligent than an individual but simply being an individual doesn't make one smarter either.
I believe most people are inherently stupid and will make bad choices when put in a heated situation. Hospital emergency rooms are fool of them on any given day of the week. Even if it's a 50/50 mix of ignorant fools to cool, calm and collected people (which I think is very generous and not at all likely) are they sort of odds you want on the other end of a gun?
Please go to Texas and tell all of "We the People" who voted for their law that they are ALL inherently stupid and untrust worthy.
You are reveiling by your statement that you want humans disarmed because you fear for your life at the price of others being murdered because you fear your fellow mankinds lack of judgement. You would take away others right to life with your "stupidity" assertion to protect your own because you fear us.
Sounds like Liberal Elites and why they are working overtime to disarm the citizens of the free world. They dont trust us and will accept our deaths as long as they don't have to fear our "ARMS" because we are "STUPID". Texans voted and told their liberal elites that thier lives and property are just as valuble and worthy to life as the liberals who have allowed them to be robbed and murdered for the same reasons you xasthur call most people "STUPID".
We COMMON people die because a hand full of people like yourself think we are stupid.
-
All I can say is that I'm glad that I live in a country where guns are not widespread and shooting murders are relatively uncommon. Violence breeds violence and violence is seldom controlled and directed in a focused manner.
Dont feel to glad mate. Theres plenty of violence across the pond as well. And far more Govt. intrusion in lives, which we Yanks despise.
And there are plenty of Yanks who know right from wrong and that this shooting was wrong.
-
Toad, you are wrong and if you were my neighbor ......well lets just say you wouldn't want to live near me too long. Us folks in the country do things a little bit different.
I have a place in the country. I still wouldn't kill someone for stealing my neighbor's hoe. I know I wouldn't want to bear that on my conscience.
YMMV.
-
Kill all home invaders no matter what their intentions are, thieves are worthless POS's! :aok
-
To you LEO's in this thread who are pronouncing Mr. Horn a murderer, or his actions simply wrong. Do you ever wonder why so many citizens have a low opinion of LEO's in america. We are tired of being assaulted, raped, robbed, murdered and everything else that goes along with crime. After all there are 400 million of us citizens while only 1 million LEO. If we had 50 million LEO then you might have a chance at protecting most of us. But then you LEO would be a domestic standing army of 50 million with the massed power to dictate law to "We the People".
In Texas "We the People" voted. Are "We the People" ultimatly the law, or are you LEO's the Law?
Hey pal, were just "citizens" too and no different then you, "well other then were judged harsher".
And nobody was "assaulted, raped, robbed, murdered, and everything else" in this incident either so quit your babbling.
It was a property crime in a neighbors unoccupied house with the Police OTW. He was told specifically by the dispatcher to stay in the house. MR. Loony was in no danger until he ran out the house with the shotgun and executed these offenders.
It doesnt matter what these two offenders might have gone on to do had they lived. This isn't Minority report and none of us are on the Pre-crime squad.
Nobody is saying you cant protect yourself. But you know that and since you lack facts and a moral leg to stand on your going to go on an emotional babble instead. I suspect if these two were local white kids that just made a mistake, and were executed, you'd all feel different.
-
Please go to Texas and tell all of "We the People" who voted for their law that they are ALL inherently stupid and untrust worthy.
You are reveiling by your statement that you want humans disarmed because you fear for your life at the price of others being murdered because you fear your fellow mankinds lack of judgement. You would take away others right to life with your "stupidity" assertion to protect your own because you fear us.
Sounds like Liberal Elites and why they are working overtime to disarm the citizens of the free world. They dont trust us and will accept our deaths as long as they don't have to fear our "ARMS" because we are "STUPID". Texans voted and told their liberal elites that thier lives and property are just as valuble and worthy to life as the liberals who have allowed them to be robbed and murdered for the same reasons you xasthur call most people "STUPID".
We COMMON people die because a hand full of people like yourself think we are stupid.
Don't lump me into your American gun-fight nonsense, I'm Australian. I don't care what you guys do with your guns. You've made your bed and you have lie in it. I know that you can't get rid of guns now, too many people have them.
There is no disarming required where I am from.. No one is armed.
Don't give me this watermelon about me disarming you, I don't influence anything in your country.
Save your rhetoric for someone who has some effect on your laws.
You're right about one thing though, I did say people are stupid.... because they are. Take that however you like.
This is as far as I'll go with politics and serious issues on this forum, I'm already starting to offend people and I would prefer to keep Aces High free of any conflict.
Good day gentlemen, thanks for the interesting discussion.
-
Kill all home invaders no matter what their intentions are, thieves are worthless POS's! :aok
Dang Rock for once I'm in your corner
-
Texas showed similar multicultural population preasures as this article gently refers to when Texas crime became the problem that helped pass the law Mr. Horn was abiding by. Remember, austrailia has about the population of Texas or slightly less. But most of the mixed asian, arabic, african and white australian population lives in cities along australias coasts. Inland is very inhospitable to human life with littel water or available food sources to support modern growing multicultural populations and the cultural balkanism and crime that comes with it.
Almost a million Melburnians have upped stakes
John Masanauskas, Herald Sun (Melbourne), June 27, 2008
June 27, 2008 12:00am
MELBURNIANS are moving house in huge numbers - with up to one-third shifting to other parts of the city and regional Victoria in the past five years, according to census data.
More than 900,000 city dwellers changed address between 2001 and 2006, as pressure from overseas migration pushed many locals towards the fringes.
About 500,000 people moved outside their local government area, while some 400,000 shifted to nearby homes.
The biggest single transfer saw 10,125 residents leave western suburbs such as Sunshine and St Albans for booming Melton.
There was a similar exodus from the Dandenong region to the southeast housing estates of Narre Warren and Berwick.
Dandenong has seen a major transformation, with the arrival of refugees and other immigrants, in recent years.
Daniel Willis, 22, said he and his partner, Rebecca Parry, moved from Dandenong to Narre Warren to escape rising crime and cultural change.
"We are going to have a family soon," he said.
"We didn't want to bring up a family in that sort of area."
City of Greater Dandenong councillor Jim Memeti said the area's cultural diversity was an asset and people moved because housing was cheaper further out.
Other areas with large outflows included neighbouring Clayton, which also has high immigrant settlement, and suburbs such as Box Hill, Pascoe Vale and Coburg.
Some areas with high outflows also recorded big intakes.
Boroondara lost 25,806 residents, but gained 23,237 from other areas.
Record high immigration and a rising birth rate saw the population rise across all council areas.
The data, prepared for the Herald Sun by the state Department of Planning and Community Development, revealed city fringe areas had the most internal movement.
More than 30,000 residents in the City of Casey, which includes Narre Warren and Berwick, moved within the area in the five-year period.
Other suburbs with high internal migration included Roxburgh Park, Sunbury, Frankston, Belgrave and Lilydale.
Planning department senior demographer Jeremy Reynolds said the trend to move small distances was common.
"The comparatively low numbers of moves across the Yarra in Melbourne, the harbour in Sydney or the Thames in London are indicative of this sectoral bias in migration," he said.
Head of Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research, Dr Bob Birrell, said poorer immigrants tended to settle in outer suburbia.
"Local residents in areas like Dandenong and Sunshine are tending to move out if they can afford to," he said.
-
I do agree that what Horn did was aggressive and not required, as he was not in direct threat of his own life and actively chose to place himself into the situation. I do agree with his actions though. Those crooks as the facts have made clear were not performing charity work--unless stealing from others and giving to oneself is now considered charity. The US citizens, especially in border states have been placed in a precarious position due to economic, political, and legal issues. Many of us do not at all want these illegals (whatever nationality or race) here at all. Like it or not, these people undercut jobs and place undue strain on governmental services to such a degree that it is negatively impacting the legal citizenry.
Fact: The U.S. Constitution applies to citizens only! The great majority of benefits and services offered by the Gov't are intended soley for citizens and new legal immigrants.
If Horn just let them go, the cops may have not found them or if they did, they would probably already be out of jail by now up to new crimes or whatever. What did they expect to encounter by stealing from people----a red carpet, smiling faces and keys to the house?!
What Horn did was send a clear message to criminals in his area. If you cross the line and violate the rights of others, you in turn surrender your rights and have entered what John Locke called the State of War.
Ill lay my cards out fair. The US legal and prison system is a sad joke. All were doing is allowing these guys to get bitter, hardend, educated in more crime and awaiting a chance to strike again. It is up to us the People to enforce our collective will if our so called leaders cant or wont discharge their duties. Really, the police have no affirmative duty to protect you or your property and they certainly wont set up a post at your house to deter thieves.
If we as people must rely on the Gov't to solve all problems, we will end up in chains in no time.
-
I dont think the DA wanted charges brought.The grand jury generaly does what the States Attorney wants in most instances and being as its an elected position in that case,perhaps he went soft on it.
The way I see it.They were shot in the back.It looked like he was pissed and went out looking to shoot someone.It was a bad shoot.He should be charged.
maby someone knows more about this case but I remember someone had their home broke into and had a gun.The thieves came through bat wing type doors and one was faceing his back twords the home owner.It was dark.Thinking they were coming after him he shot the first through the door in the back.He was charged.Theres a lot of gray area in that shoot.In this case there wasnt.This was an execution.
That being said I dont feel one bit of pity for the perps.
-
""" Violence breeds violence and violence is seldom controlled and directed in a focused manner. """
wrong.........
violence given proper time and application can and will solve anything/everything
-
Very True,
I mean if violence were gone, What would become of rugby?
-
It's funny after all these years to come to the conclusion that a lot of you guys in this thread probably now put me in the pink-skirt-wearing-commie-liberal category because I won't kill someone over the loss of a $15 garden implement.
This must sow confusion amongst my enemies here that have figured all these years that I'm a hard-headed-heartless-conservative-jackaxe-warmonger. :)
I will close out by posting my view on having to kill someone. I've surely got the necessary guns of all types and the concealed carry permit to get the job done. However, these are the rules I'm going by. Not just because it is the law in my state but because they make sense. To clarify, these are the rules I'd go by even if I lived in Texas. I feel they are reasonable.
Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
My personal code would never allow me to kill someone over the theft of a pot of petunias, a cherry pie, a garden hoe or even a brand new Corvette. I am really amazed at some of the things I've read here.
Someone threatens a life though and I'll do my best to stop that.
-
Fact: The U.S. Constitution applies to citizens only!
I think you'd better review the recent Supreme Court Gitmo decision.
-
All the Gitmo Case is giving them is a chance to have their day in court. They are not citizens. I dont agree 100% with the decision, but those men in Gitmo do need their cases handled and in a fair manner.
-
Exactly. They have the privilege of habeas corpus like an American citizen. The SC applied the Constitution extraterritorially (and incorrectly IMO).
-
Very True,
I mean if violence were gone, What would become of rugby?
:rofl
-
It's funny after all these years to come to the conclusion that a lot of you guys in this thread probably now put me in the pink-skirt-wearing-commie-liberal category because I won't kill someone over the loss of a $15 garden implement.
This must sow confusion amongst my enemies here that have figured all these years that I'm a hard-headed-heartless-conservative-jackaxe-warmonger. :)
I will close out by posting my view on having to kill someone. I've surely got the necessary guns of all types and the concealed carry permit to get the job done. However, these are the rules I'm going by. Not just because it is the law in my state but because they make sense. To clarify, these are the rules I'd go by even if I lived in Texas. I feel they are reasonable.
My personal code would never allow me to kill someone over the theft of a pot of petunias, a cherry pie, a garden hoe or even a brand new Corvette. I am really amazed at some of the things I've read here.
Someone threatens a life though and I'll do my best to stop that.
no, i personally don't catragorize you that way. you're a person with an opinion, and although i might not agree with it, i do respect your opinions.
but that's just me
<<S>>
-
real simple.. if you are not committing a crime and someone who is committing a crime is a threat to you then you need to shoot them... front back or sideways.
I can't make it any more clear than that. It matters not if it is your house or someone else's...
Only the person who does the shooting can tell us if he was threatened or not.
you have no idea if the two thugs breaking into the house next door in the middle of the night are just there to steal a "garden implement" or are just hitting the next house in line in their night of killing and pillaging.
Lets just say that the criminals who break into houses these days.. especially the ones who travel in pairs.. are not known for being peace loving and reasonable types.
In the end.. I am not gonna second guess anyones decision on if they were a threat or not.
lazs
-
you have no idea if the two thugs breaking into the house next door in the middle of the night are just there to steal a "garden implement" or are just hitting the next house in line in their night of killing and pillaging.
lazs
That's right, you don't. You also don't know if it might be the neighbor's 20 year old and a friend trying to get the key in the lock either.
You can't just start shooting until there IS a threat and one that is life threatening to someone.
In the above scenario I can see myself calling 911, taking an advantageous position and from there confronting the people in question and holding them until the police arrive.
I cannot see myself opening fire without attempting to verify the direct threat to someone's life. I would not, for example, raise the window and start shooting which some in here seem to advocate.
-
All depends on the circumstances. In Horn's case, who knew his neighbor and knew the 2 now deceased crooks were not family or friends of said neighbor.
-
We dont kill people without just reason cause we are better then that. We are better then the scum out there killing, raping, robbing...ect
We dont play Judge and jury cause that's the first step towards tyranny. Govt. tyranny or Mob tyranny. Whats the difference?
It wasnt home invasion cause nobody was home and the shooter knew it.
The Police cant shoot people in the back over a property crime. So why would you think a neighbor can? And if a citizen cant then the Police have no business thinking they can.
I blame these nitwit politicians and the spineless way we have handled the problem of illegal immigration, most of all by the selfish way Liberal Politicians have. Theres a lot of anger in our border states with this invasion from the south, and a lot of it justified. Your going to see a lot more of this in future years.
People are fed up and I dont blame them.
-
That's right, you don't. You also don't know if it might be the neighbor's 20 year old and a friend trying to get the key in the lock either.
You can't just start shooting until there IS a threat and one that is life threatening to someone.
In the above scenario I can see myself calling 911, taking an advantageous position and from there confronting the people in question and holding them until the police arrive.
I cannot see myself opening fire without attempting to verify the direct threat to someone's life. I would not, for example, raise the window and start shooting which some in here seem to advocate.
You can't hold them if they just takeoff running. You'd need a taser, which is not a substitute for a gun. Trying to subdue and restrain someone is possible, 1 on 1, provided you have sufficient training... but you don't know if they're armed or not. Fighting 1 on 2 is out of the question and a recipe for disaster.
Now here's where the fun part of Texas law comes in. I'll use my recent example. A guy plowed into my 4Runner and was quick to run off down the street...
Option 1: Jumping on his back and choking him unconscious. Rear naked choke = lateral vascular restraint, cuts off the blood flow, you go out in a few seconds.
Option 2: Taking the guy to the ground, mounting, dropping fists and elbows, and switching to an armbar. Armbars dislocate elbows and tear tendons.
Option 3: Pulling out my pistol and shooting him.
Option 4: Stand there like an idiot and hope the cops show up quickly.
Option 1, legal. Cops will let you skip and dance away, but it's a gamble because you don't know wtf he may be armed with. I'm told getting stabbed sucks pretty bad.
Option 2, illegal. You go to jail with the guy and get strip-searched.
Option 3, illegal. You go to jail, guy goes to morgue, you get strip-searched, Quannel X protests in your neighborhood.
Option 4, legal. However, I've had response times between 1 minute and 3 hours. It's a roll of the dice.
Now, option 3 becomes perfectly legal if the guy does something as simple as turning around and reaching into his pocket. You don't know what he has. The only safe option is to open up on him.
Now, back to the original situation, looking from a criminals perspective... I'm gonna run from you. I'm not gonna stick around and be arrested. On top of that, I know you have guns. I know everybody leaves their home at some point. I know exactly who to rob soon, because guns sell very, very well.
-
Toad, you are wrong and if you were my neighbor ......well lets just say you wouldn't want to live near me too long. Us folks in the country do things a little bit different. We lookout for and help are neighbors because it's just common respect and descenticy. The crimials in this case have no respect for someones home and probably the lives in that home. Nor would they have any for you or yours.
Too many people in this country turn the other way when dope dealers are pushing their drugs to our kids or stealing us blind, because they "don't want to get involved". You sir are part of the problem. If you sat and watched as my home get invaded and did nothing, I'd replace my stuff with your stuff the very second you left for work.And crap in the sink on the way out.
He never said he'd "do nothing-" FWIW I live in the country too, and if I saw someone ripping off my neighbor I'd call 911, try to get his license number, maybe park my truck to block his exit (I've done that before- I had some kid that was trying to rip off a neighbor's lawnmower beg me to let him go before the cops showed up)- but I WOULD NOT execute your burgular for you...Can't do it. And even if I did nothing at all- say, we've met at the mailboxes and I think you're a clown, maybe I'm old and fearful of retribution, whatever-if you believe that would give you license to rip ME off, and I found out it was you that did it, then you are right about one thing- I wouldn't want to live next to you- you'd have to go.
-
Whether thieves are worthless scum or not, what he did was extremely irresponsible and the kind of crap that gives gun owners a bad name, and may end up getting guns either banned or heavily regulated in the United States.
-
Motherland, the firearms industry is as regulated as it can be already. Every new legal tactic gets tried on the guns first. I sell them and deal with the regulations daily. Living in IL, I also get a nice dose of local level gun legislation along with the federal rules. As for banning guns...........
....... the US population will be noticably less when guns here are successfully banned.
-
You can't hold them if they just takeoff running.
If they take off running, it would be very rare that I could reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to my person or a third person. Therefore, I'm not shooting a person running away in 99.9% of the situations.
-
you have no idea if the two thugs breaking into the house next door in the middle of the night are just there to steal a "garden implement" or are just hitting the next house in line in their night of killing and pillaging.
Lets just say that the criminals who break into houses these days.. especially the ones who travel in pairs.. are not known for being peace loving and reasonable types.
Bravo...Bravo.....very well put good chap!
<<Clappy, Clappy>>
:aok
-
Toad, you just aint a real man.....ya librule!!!!! :lol
shamus
-
On top of that, I know you have guns. I know everybody leaves their home at some point. I know exactly who to rob soon, because guns sell very, very well.
I missed that bit. I like it though.
When you come back to rob me of my firearms bring a friend. I'll even tell you where they all are located. All but two of them are in one of a pair of 500 pound Cannon safes, bolted from the inside to a concrete floor. Just pick that puppy up, toss her on your back and skedaddle down the driveway.
The other two.. well, one will be on my person and the other will be on my wife's person, both concealed, both loaded.
Y'all come back now, hear? :)
-
Toad, you just aint a real man.....ya librule!!!!! :lol
shamus
:D
Nope, yer right. Since I realized I won't kill a man over my neighbor's garden hoe, I've decided to go the whole route. I'm checking on what it takes to have a sex change operation and then re-register as a Democrat. :rofl
-
Nobody is saying you cant protect yourself. But you know that and since you lack facts and a moral leg to stand on your going to go on an emotional babble instead. I suspect if these two were local white kids that just made a mistake, and were executed, you'd all feel different.
Rich I'm white and I live in Oakland California. God knows it would be nice if it were two white kids in this city doing break ins. This being california and Oaktown and me being white, my runins with the locals over the years have required a great deal of finess not to go to jail for being white, conservitive and christian when the dust setteled. Pre judged racist for being under the influence of whiteness and suspected bootleger of conservitism......
Sure I wish california and Oakland had laws exactly like Texas. Just like Texas the majority of our crime seems to be commited by a majority of a minority who don't give a watermelon about yours or my morality. And emotional babble, LEO's dont have a corner in this country on living through dangerous people encounters. There are more citizens than LEO's by 400 million to 1 million. Our private encounters don't make it to the news, or COP shows, or on COP cams. The ratio of us to LEO supports alot of crime and citizen encounters which go undocumented.
Thank God in Texas they voted a solution to theirs.......
-
I have no pity for illegal aliens shot during the course of robbing someones home. Simple as that.
-
I have no pity for illegal aliens shot during the course of robbing someones home. Simple as that.
i have no pity for illegal aliens. period.
-
I know we have several 'gun nuts' as well as several LEO's here.
What are your opinions?
Do you plan on Open Carrying (OC)?
Do you OC regularly?
Me personally, I do plan to OC on the 4th. It may be just in my backyard, or it may be to the 7-11, but somewhere, sometime that day, I will be armed. I'm currently discussing OC with my fiancee, her and I are of two different opinions. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out in the end.
http://www.patriotpages.net/nationalopencarry.htm (http://www.patriotpages.net/nationalopencarry.htm)
-
So you want your 4th ruined, for both you and the cop that would have to respond to the call someone would make?
-
no, i personally don't catragorize you that way. you're a person with an opinion, and although i might not agree with it, i do respect your opinions.
but that's just me
<<S>>
Me, too!
-
So you want your 4th ruined, for both you and the cop that would have to respond to the call someone would make?
Yup.
-
snip
In the above scenario I can see myself calling 911, taking an advantageous position and from there confronting the people in question and holding them until the police arrive.
"Holding them"? How do you propose to do that? I mean, what if they decline to stay?
-
forever!
I LOVE round guns. Now, before you hard-core auto guys post about speed and reload time.....watch. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ba_1215041224 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ba_1215041224)
If you drew down on this guy, you would look like a sponge before you found your safety :rock
-
I have no pity for illegal aliens shot during the course of robbing someones home. Simple as that.
If it were two white kids, citizens, would you feel differently?
-
2wicked
-
"Holding them"? How do you propose to do that? I mean, what if they decline to stay?
Well, if you can believe the NRA Armed Citizen stories it appears there's a lot of folks that co-operate when they're looking at the business end of a 1911.
Of course, there's some hardheads that take that as a challenge and advance upon you. I have no compunction about stopping that in its tracks.
Then there's those that will take to their heels. In that event, as I may have mentioned once or twice before, if there is no imminent threat to my life or the life of a third party, I guess they'll get away unless the cops get there and do their job.
Because, as I also may have mentioned, I'm not going to kill someone over a stolen TV if there's no imminent threat to someone's life.
I hd to give all of this quite a bit of thought when I got my concealed carry. I had to arrive at a code I could live with the rest of my life if I had to kill someone. That's where I am. YMMV.
-
If it were two white kids, citizens, would you feel differently?
robbing that house? i doubt it.
-
So you want your 4th ruined, for both you and the cop that would have to respond to the call someone would make?
This just screams ignorance.
How is my day going to be ruined? How is the cops day going to be ruined? Please elaborate.
-
Well i don't know you so don't take this personally or anything, but I am going to give you an example.
So we have Bob, he thinks the best way to celebrate the 4th is by strapping on his Kimber sumperduper SWAT special deluxe tac pistol with tac light and laser, take some sirlions from the icebox and heads out to the deck behind the trailer. He gets his cooler and puts some ice and alot of beer in it, and the lights up the BBQ. He uses to much lighter fluid cause he likes to watch the big fiiire. Later after the coals are almost ready Bob releases the beer is gone. Well Bobs feeling no pain and forgets he has had a few beers, and has his pistol strapped on and heads down to Bobs bait and beer(no relation) for some booze.
As he is walking in some uptight liberal sees him, thinks 'hmmmm he looks drunk and has a gun I better call the cops!' and dials 911 on her cell phone.
She tells the 911 operator 'a drunk man with a gun just staggered into a Bobs bait a and beer!" (no relation)
The 911 operator puts out a call and by chance, chuck, a local cop happened to be about a block away filling out paper work. He rushes to the Bobs Bait and Beer.(no Relation)
He gets there just as Bob comes out of the "Bobs Bait and Beer" (no relation) with 2 12 packs and the almost runs into Chuck.
Chuck thinking he was going to a robbery has his gun out and is a little exited so when bob drops the beer cans Chuck lets loose with 13 rounds from his 40.Glock (Chuck was a NY cop, thats how they roll), luckily Chuck being like most cops, doesn't practice much so he misses with all his shot.
Bob on the other hand shot himself in the foot when he drunkenly tried to pull his cocked and locked Kimber.
Bob goes to Jail for trying to shoot a cop, even though thats not quit fair. They can sort it out with the DA.
Ok outlandish and silly, sure, but the real ending is so predictable, all of the above up to the phone call is basically the same. Just that when Chuck and the other units in the area arrive, theres all the yelling, the hand cuffing after that the breathalyser. Then county jail for the night with Bob the drunken Harley mechanic( no relation) who likes to cuddle. The the lawyers and court dates etc.
That is unless you live in some back woods location and know everyone. You know maybe like that valley in deliverance?
Here in California I am sure the cops would be really annoyed at having to waste their time on some dipstick who decided strapping on his hog leg was the way to celebrate independence day.
I am pretty pro gun as well, but also a realist, but hey, I guess I am the ignorant one.
-
OC in Illinois! I wish! Other than in farmland (still good idea stay out of view from the road), garages, or fenced in yards, no such things exist in IL, other than for LEOs.
-
I carried for quite a few years. It took over 6 months before I stopped feeling naked without it. I haven't had a reason to open carry. I have no reason to open carry and certainly would not to make any kind of "statement".
Coshy, if you think that carrying on the 4th is some kind of big deal you are likely one of those people who should not be carrying, at all. This is not some kind of initiation, you are not being some kind of big guy or showing how tough you are. You are demonstrating a lack of maturity as far as I am concerned.
It's already been pointed out to you but let me second the thought that you may just end up having to explain to a LEO just what you are doing because someone else thinks that you may have some illegal usage of the gun you are carrying. Especially if you go waltzing into a convenience market. If I got a call that someone was seen walking into a convenience market openly showing a gun I would have to assume it's not about making some kind of a statement.
I'm sure you won't appreciate the difference of opinion since it's not what you will want to hear. A weapon is not a statement or a fashion accessory. It should not be used as one either.
-
Hehe.....not this thread again already :rofl, I think I shall pass.
shamus
-
I know we have several 'gun nuts' as well as several LEO's here.
What are your opinions?
Do you plan on Open Carrying (OC)?
Do you OC regularly?
Me personally, I do plan to OC on the 4th. It may be just in my backyard, or it may be to the 7-11, but somewhere, sometime that day, I will be armed. I'm currently discussing OC with my fiancee, her and I are of two different opinions. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out in the end.
http://www.patriotpages.net/nationalopencarry.htm (http://www.patriotpages.net/nationalopencarry.htm)
What state do you live in?
In some states doing such a thing can ruin your day in others hardly anyone will notice.
In my state open carry is LEGAL and does happen from time to time. Most just ignore it when they see it.
In Kalifornia open carry will probably get you arrested and jail time EVEN though it's SUPPOSED to be legal.
Have you consulted or retained a GOOD attorney?
-
GTO,
Bob showed a lack of judgement in your scenario and should be judged accordingly, in a court of law. He is the kind of irresponsible gun owner that reflects badly on the rest of us. Chuck sounds like he could use a bit more training as well, particularly at the pistol range. Someone may also want to clue him in on the gun laws in his area, in many cases a guy walking into a 7-11 wearing a gun is as legal as wearing a pair of sunglasses. And the uptight liberal with 911 speed dial ... she needs to get laid.
Mav,
A lack of maturity ... should not be carrying at all ... I see.
Therefore, because you wish to excercise your right to pick your own religion I should deduce you lack maturity and should not be going to church at all?
Or if you chose to excercise your right to peaceably assemble I should consider you immature and you should not be able to peaceably assemble?
Its not about being a tough guy, or showing how big I am, its simply about excercising a right, doing something as legal as going to church or attending a political rally. Too long have the anti-gun folks pounded the idea that 'gunz r bad' into peoples head, the simplest and most effective way of showing the populace that guns are not bad is by responsible gun owners wearing their guns (where legally able to do so). I know of many folks who open carry on a daily basis with no negative consequences. Of course there are the instances when uninformed LEOs come goose-stepping in and try to intimidate, but those are the exception rather than the norm. And the outcomes of those instances generally turn out well for the gun owners. Google Dickson City.
Is it making a statement? To some degrees, yes. It states that I am responsible for my own protection, it states I refuse to become a helpless, defenseless victim, it states that I will, if necessarry defend myself to the best of my ability. So in those cases, yeah, I suppose it is making a strong statement. But the more subtle statement, and possibly more important in the long term, is that guns in and of themselves are not bad, its the people weilding them who make bad decisions.
I have thought long and hard about OC'ing and on a daily basis, its something I probably will not do. In many ways I think it takes away a tactical advantage and gives the bad guys a priority target. Better in many cases to conceal carry. I'm looking into getting additionial training, specifically in gun retention, before I decide wether to open carry regularly or not. The consequenses of my potential choices are not lost on me, I'm not the type of person to go do a thing without being very well informed about that thing, whatever it may be.
As far as explaining to a LEO just what I am doing ... so long as I am not commiting a crime, I am under no compulsion to explain anything, but since I'm excercising my right to remain silent, I assume that shows immaturity and I should start talking.
Informed differences of opinion and the discussion they bring are the reason why I post. If I wanted to hear someone agree with me all the time I'd just email myself.
Wrag,
Open carry is legal in my state, with the exceptions of two cities. In fact in all but MD every state in my area is legal to OC.
-
robbing that house? i doubt it.
Well, I think you lied when you said you didn't have any threes, but that doesn't matter cause I drew a three so I got what I wanted.
So...tell me the truth now...
Do you have any nines? :)
-
:D
Nope, yer right. Since I realized I won't kill a man over my neighbor's garden hoe, I've decided to go the whole route. I'm checking on what it takes to have a sex change operation and then re-register as a Democrat. :rofl
You don't have to undergo a sex change operation to be a good Liberal, Toad- all you have to do is show a bit of common sense and compassion. I believe you are a work in progress, but you're a smart guy so eventually you'll see the light and start fighting the good fight.
-
The way OC would work in Illinois is a disturbing the peace charge at least as a cop I work with explained it to me. People around here just are not used to seeing guns in pubic other than with cops or robbers and would knee jerk call the cops "there is a man walking around with a gun."
-
The way OC would work in Illinois is a disturbing the peace charge at least as a cop I work with explained it to me. People around here just are not used to seeing guns in pubic other than with cops or robbers and would knee jerk call the cops "there is a man walking around with a gun."
Dont you find that odd? That the general perception is if you are carrying a gun and not obviously a LEO, you are then a robber?
-
real simple.. if you are not committing a crime and someone who is committing a crime is a threat to you then you need to shoot them... front back or sideways.
I can't make it any more clear than that. It matters not if it is your house or someone else's...
Only the person who does the shooting can tell us if he was threatened or not.
you have no idea if the two thugs breaking into the house next door in the middle of the night are just there to steal a "garden implement" or are just hitting the next house in line in their night of killing and pillaging.
Lets just say that the criminals who break into houses these days.. especially the ones who travel in pairs.. are not known for being peace loving and reasonable types.
In the end.. I am not gonna second guess anyones decision on if they were a threat or not.
lazs
I hope you're a real courteous driver and don't park in handicapped zones lazs ;)
-
Of course I find it odd, I work in a gunshop, I used to live in Seattle, Wa and had my CCW there. Here there is more crime and the local Gov't takes all its cues from Chicago to the point where Illinois should just be renamed the Greater Chicago Area and Emperor Daley could just replace the Governor and continue his rule as Der Fuhrer of Chicago. Granted Southern Illinois has a quite a few bones to pick with Chicago area for constantly being overlooked and dominated in local politics.
Gotta keep in mind, that Illinois used to allow people to carry a gun until the 60's when the Black Panthers in Chicago began patrolling the streets. The easily scared and uptight white citizens enmass surrendered their rights in a bid to take the guns away from the Black Panthers---which only forced them to carry illegally.
-
damn that was fast
-
You don't have to undergo a sex change operation to be a good Liberal, Toad- all you have to do is show a bit of common sense and compassion. I believe you are a work in progress, but you're a smart guy so eventually you'll see the light and start fighting the good fight.
Who would you like to give your earned money to? Not that liberals will give you a choice... just curious.
-
Sure I wish california and Oakland had laws exactly like Texas. Just like Texas the majority of our crime seems to be commited by a majority of a minority who don't give a watermelon about yours or my morality. And emotional babble, LEO's dont have a corner in this country on living through dangerous people encounters. There are more citizens than LEO's by 400 million to 1 million. Our private encounters don't make it to the news, or COP shows, or on COP cams. The ratio of us to LEO supports alot of crime and citizen encounters which go undocumented.
Thank God in Texas they voted a solution to theirs.......
What does any of that got to do with shooting 2 unarmed property offenders in the back by a guy who wasnt himself, or anyone else, threatened?
Just wait, there will be a tragedy where a neighbor shoots another over a lawn chair at 0300 and Texas will rethink its "shoot first" Law.
As usual the same guys turn it all into an us vs you cop thread. So Im bowing out. Theres nothing left to say anyway.
And 99% of what happens to "us" never hits the news either.
But thanks for the anthropology lesson anyway. I do get it yaknow, having worked the ghetto myself for more then two decades. They were non-white and illegal so go ahead and shoot.
You see? I get it.
-
I have no reason to open carry and certainly would not to make any kind of "statement".
Yea, but only because you have a real noodle. Showoff.
-
Well i don't know you so don't take this personally or anything, but I am going to give you an example.
So we have Bob, he thinks the best way to celebrate the 4th is by strapping on his Kimber sumperduper SWAT special deluxe tac pistol with tac light and laser, take some sirlions from the icebox and heads out to the deck behind the trailer. He gets his cooler and puts some ice and alot of beer in it, and the lights up the BBQ. He uses to much lighter fluid cause he likes to watch the big fiiire. Later after the coals are almost ready Bob releases the beer is gone. Well Bobs feeling no pain and forgets he has had a few beers, and has his pistol strapped on and heads down to Bobs bait and beer(no relation) for some booze.
As he is walking in some uptight liberal sees him, thinks 'hmmmm he looks drunk and has a gun I better call the cops!' and dials 911 on her cell phone.
She tells the 911 operator 'a drunk man with a gun just staggered into a Bobs bait a and beer!" (no relation)
The 911 operator puts out a call and by chance, chuck, a local cop happened to be about a block away filling out paper work. He rushes to the Bobs Bait and Beer.(no Relation)
He gets there just as Bob comes out of the "Bobs Bait and Beer" (no relation) with 2 12 packs and the almost runs into Chuck.
Chuck thinking he was going to a robbery has his gun out and is a little exited so when bob drops the beer cans Chuck lets loose with 13 rounds from his 40.Glock (Chuck was a NY cop, thats how they roll), luckily Chuck being like most cops, doesn't practice much so he misses with all his shot.
Bob on the other hand shot himself in the foot when he drunkenly tried to pull his cocked and locked Kimber.
Bob goes to Jail for trying to shoot a cop, even though thats not quit fair. They can sort it out with the DA.
Ok outlandish and silly, sure, but the real ending is so predictable, all of the above up to the phone call is basically the same. Just that when Chuck and the other units in the area arrive, theres all the yelling, the hand cuffing after that the breathalyser. Then county jail for the night with Bob the drunken Harley mechanic( no relation) who likes to cuddle. The the lawyers and court dates etc.
That is unless you live in some back woods location and know everyone. You know maybe like that valley in deliverance?
Here in California I am sure the cops would be really annoyed at having to waste their time on some dipstick who decided strapping on his hog leg was the way to celebrate independence day.
I am pretty pro gun as well, but also a realist, but hey, I guess I am the ignorant one.
If you're going to make such a freaking ridiculous story about what ***COULD*** happen, why not take the extra freaking step and include a space alien invasion or the zombie apocalypse.
What you posted has NO bearing on reality.
-
I'm a proponent of open carry but but BUT if open carry is illegal in your state why would you want to purposely break the law? I'm good with concealed carry, it's no ones business to know if I'm armed or not. if open carry were legal in my state I'm not so sure I would carry openly. I think it is for me to know and you to find out that has the greatest appeal.
-
Rights, rights, rights . . . sheesh. If we had a thread about what we owe as a citizen as opposed to what is our due, I really don't know if it would receive 5 substantive posts.
-
What does any of that got to do with shooting 2 unarmed property offenders in the back by a guy who wasnt himself, or anyone else, threatened?
Just wait, there will be a tragedy where a neighbor shoots another over a lawn chair at 0300 and Texas will rethink its "shoot first" Law.
As usual the same guys turn it all into an us vs you cop thread. So Im bowing out. Theres nothing left to say anyway.
And 99% of what happens to "us" never hits the news either.
But thanks for the anthropology lesson anyway. I do get it yaknow, having worked the ghetto myself for more then two decades. They were non-white and illegal so go ahead and shoot.
You see? I get it.
The thing is, there hasn't been a shooting like that over a lawn chair. Not in Texas. Not in Florida. Not anywhere.
What liberals and crappy COPs will never understand is that giving citizens guns does not turn the neighborhood into the wild west.
-
I missed that bit. I like it though.
Y'all come back now, hear? :)
Right on. We'll be the guys in the local police department jackets with fake badges.
Man, the crazy stuff you can learn from 2 strikers in your WoW guild. :huh
-
hap.. I believe you are wrong.
I believe that there would be wide and vehement disagreement on what we do or don't owe as citizens of the United States .. or as simply illegal aliens.
As for open carry.. I don't see the point.. in the states that allow it you don't need to make a point. I also think open carry is not a great idea.. more into concealed carry.
lazs
-
again.. I agree with toad and rich for the most part. I would not shoot anyone who was not a threat to me or someone else. There would be no way I would shoot the neighbors son and his friend breaking into their own home because...
they would tell me who they were.
They would not threaten my life.
I would not shoot anyone in the back who was not a threat to me. If they had a weapon and/or had just been a threat to me I would shoot em back front or sideways before they could get into a better position to do me or others harm.
Shooting is a last resort to me.. when there is no other choice. I don't really know if that was the case here or not.
lazs
-
As this is one of the most talked about topics in the O'Club, I decided to make it easy for you. Now you no longer need to hunt for this thread.
If you want to discuss guns, then this is the thread to do it in.
-
Right on. We'll be the guys in the local police department jackets with fake badges.
Man, the crazy stuff you can learn from 2 strikers in your WoW guild. :huh
Bring a really, really good fake warrant with you and expect to discuss it with the local county mountie before you enter. One quick call to local dispatch can clear up a lot of confusion, can't it?
-
If you want to discuss guns, then this is the thread to do it in.
Skuzzy, with all due respect sir, "guns" is a mighty big topic for one thread.
There's the purchasing aspect, the performance comparison aspect, the hunting/places to use them aspect, there's the whole gun rights aspect along with various other political aspects, there's the self defense aspect and more than those I'm sure.
It seems it will be pretty difficult to keep the discussions straight if they're all mixed into one thread. Sort of a tower of babel problem if you will.
Just my .0s.
-
just remember, when seconds count, cops are only minutes away.
Base on 2 lawsuits against police departments, the police are under no obligation to prevent crime. therefore you are in charge of your own destiny.
if you don't have a gun. that's of your choosing and you can die a happy liberal.
if you are like some of us, i believe in protecting myself and will shoot to protect my life, my property and my family. i even believe in protecting my neighbors not smart enough to own guns.
point is, if the cops cant save you, save yourself. God bless america!!
-
"We are going to have a family soon," he said.
"We didn't want to bring up a family in that sort of area."
City of Greater Dandenong councillor Jim Memeti said the area's cultural diversity was an asset and people moved because housing was cheaper further out.
"Local residents in areas like Dandenong and Sunshine are tending to move out if they can afford to," he said.
[/b]
What point are you trying to make with this?
They don't call Sunshine 'Scumshine' for nothing, it's a hole.
That article refers to the areas of greater Melbourne that contain the very lowest socio-economic groups.
Crime is more prevalent in these areas all over the world. What does this have to do with using inappropriate deadly force?
Forgive me for not knowing the names of scum-filled areas of America very well but would you bring your children up in Detroit? Is that a good enough example?
Judging by the tidy yards and large houses shown in the clip from the original post, this double shooting took place in a relatively wealthy town.
Where is the relevance?
-
Skuzzy, with all due respect sir, "guns" is a mighty big topic for one thread.
There's the purchasing aspect, the performance comparison aspect, the hunting/places to use them aspect, there's the whole gun rights aspect along with various other political aspects, there's the self defense aspect and more than those I'm sure.
It seems it will be pretty difficult to keep the discussions straight if they're all mixed into one thread. Sort of a tower of babel problem if you will.
Just my .0s.
Toad, generally speaking I agree with you. However, the reality is almost all the gun related threads devolve into the same discussion. It really is painful to have a dozen gun topics all about the same thing and all being posted to.
In a many cases, the same exact posts were being copied from one thread to another. It had really gotten very abused. Then two weeks later another thread would start up about the same thing all over again, repeat ad infinitum.
I agree about the purchases though. I have not merged those into this thread.
One of the good things that could come out of this is those of you who have a true passion for firearms will not be bothered as much by trolls. Trolls have a tendency to want attention and not allowing them to see their name in lights by starting threads has a tendency to slow them down a bit.
-
Toad, generally speaking I agree with you. However, the reality is almost all the gun related threads devolve into the same discussion. It really is painful to have a dozen gun topics all about the same thing and all being posted to.
In a many cases, the same exact posts were being copied from one thread to another. It had really gotten very abused.
I agree about the purchases though. I have not merged those into this thread.
As much as I know it always happens, and I try to stay away, I can't.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
-
Had to add these links :rofl
http://deadbangguns.com/
http://deadbangguns.com/GunControl.html
http://deadbangguns.com/HellGlock.html
http://deadbangguns.com/History.html
Just trying to be helpful here :aok
And this just came up..........
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCxcKGSQ7r7ORZNySqR3F0kP5rOgD91KMM180
And this could be a good document to have around?
http://www.gunfacts.info/
-
The national discussion on the Joe Horn situation has begun. I can't see it as a benefit.
Looking Kindly on Vigilante Justice http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820028,00.html
Time magazine, wide national distribution, written by a guy with a concealed carry license.
The 911 tape offered up a few clues that Joe Horn had every intention of killing the men who were breaking into the house next door. For example, there was that time, six minutes into the phone call, when he told the dispatcher, "I'm gonna kill 'em."
And "kill 'em" he did, stepping outside his house to shoot the men with three shotgun blasts in the back as they retreated across his lawn with a bag of stolen goods from next door....
...The Castle Doctrine was also invoked in a shooting a month ago 250 miles away from the Horn incident, in Kaufman County, Texas. An elderly man picked up a gun and shot — out his front window — at an "intruder" who turned out to be his 15-year-old neighbor, who was crossing his lawn at night with a friend. The boy survived, but as his friend's mother drove them to the hospital, they were hit by a drunk driver, killing the mother and leaving both boys with even more injuries. The car accident wasn't the old man's fault; the shooting most definitely was. County law-enforcement officials initially declined to press charges, citing the Castle Doctrine. Ultimately, they recommended the case to a grand jury, which did, in fact, indict him...
...If the Castle Doctrine were interpreted with the kind of sobriety and restraint espoused by my instructor (and responsible gun owners), it would be a good law. But by celebrating its most overreaching interpretations, those who make a hero out of Joe Horn will ultimately only succeed in ensuring that it isn't
I would hope the Kaufman County real life example gives pause to some of the people that have posted in this thread.
I would hope that understanding the Horn said he would kill them before he ever left his house gives pause to some of his defenders in this thread.
I know, hope in one hand, shirt in the other and see which one fills up first.
-
toad.. with all due respect.. I hold "time" magazine in about as much regard as "newsweek".. which means... none at all.
lazs
-
I feel the same way but that's not the point.
It's wide distribution and a lot of average neutral-on-guns people are going to read it. The Joe Horn case got a lot of discussion by folks like us and the rabid antis but I imagine that on a national scale the everyday folk that don't think about guns very much probably missed it entirely.
It's out there now and I believe the general populace will see this as a bad shoot.
The cowboy movies generally disparaged shooting someone in the back; in a country that values the Old West morality that isn't going to play well. Horn's stated intent to kill them before he ever left his house isn't going to play well. The Kaufman County shooting isn't going to play well and will also provide ammunition for the antis.
I think Horn hurt the cause of gun rights. IMO.
-
I really don't know what he did but if he just shot em in the back for no reason other than the burglary then he was wrong in my opinion.
If he felt he or anyone else was in danger then I say that the whole thing and the results were the fault of the people who caused it to happen.. the burglars.
lazs
-
I invite you to listen to the 911 tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc
Then tell me what you think.
-
The guy shot em in the back.What was the danger?Were they going to fart on him? I see nothing but him stateing he was going to kill them and then he followed through.
-
I scare the "hot" dogs of by sending them a message from my 12 gauge, shots no. 5 or so, from about 80 yards. It makes a yelp, fast speed, no injuries, and no return :devil
-
I may be re telling some one Else's post, but in Texas the law reads, you can use deadly force to protect yourself , your person, your personal property, and your neighbors self, or personal property!!
if the neighbor asked, then you have a second guarantee in the fact that you become an agent of his property therefore responsible as if it was your own,
the reason that it is this way is because Texas thinks it is more important to protect you and your property than to protect the rights of those who break the law!
if these men did not want to die ,,, they should not have come here,, again,,,, to rob my fellow Texans
if a law enforcement agent would have arrived on the scene,he would have had the right too shoot them,, the law in Texas gave the average person that same right!! as well they should have!!
and it has been determend that he did not shoot them in the back , instead it looks like he got both of them in the first shot , hitting one of them in the side the other from the opposite side, like they were weaving in and out at each other, one was mortally wounded at that time , while the other bled out while running away!!
the only question this brings up is, is your personal property worth more than the life of those who wish too take it from you,,, Texas says it is! if you have a problem with that don't come too Texas planing to rob anyone!!
from "rob's, no bull zone"
The burglars shot by Horn had extensive criminal records. Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction. These were career criminals and not only are they here breaking into American citizens homes but they broke the law just to get into our country. These two criminals are being supported by the black panthers and civil rights activists which were very much for Mr. Horn going to jail for his heroic action.
-
All gun topics must fit in this one thread? This is gonna get confusing if people dont quote who or what they are replying too.
-
the reason that it is this way is because Texas thinks it is more important to protect you and your property than to protect the rights of those who break the law!
if these men did not want to die ,,, they should not have come here,, again,,,, to rob my fellow Texans
Care to send some of that not so common sense to the east coast.
-
I invite you to listen to the 911 tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc
Then tell me what you think.
I have listened to Mr.Horn's 911 call a handfull of times now and I will agree he said and did some things maybe he shouldnt have.
In the end though I still applaud him for what he did cause I believe when he said "move you're Dead" was him telling them what would happen if they moved. They moved. He stopped them from possibly hurting him. They chose to move when he told them not to. They decided their fate, not Mr. Horn and I'd see it that way if I was a juror on the jury. I still dont think he was wrong.
I'd like to see the court transcripts if they are ever released, if that statement was adressed and what his response was.
-
What is everyone's choice of a CCW weapon?
I plan to use my Kimber SIS Pro as my carry piece when I escape Illinois.
-
The tape doesn't tell me much.. I think everyone here has said they were gonna "kill that guy" It is probly a poor choice of words but.. I don't know what happened in the house just before the shooting.. no one does.
If he told em not to move or he would shoot and then they moved.. Like I said.. I wasn't there but that would mean a threat to me. Two hardened criminals.. one old man who has brought a gun and is now committed to either shoot or have the gun used on him? Who knows.
Like I said.. if he felt he was in no danger then he was wrong. The guys who broke in were the real bad guys tho. they coulda stayed in columbia but they broke into the country.. they coulda not broke into the home to rob and or whatever..
And last.. they coulda... shoulda.. just put their hands on top of their head and sat down on the floor and waited for the cops to get there and arrest em.
lazs
-
AA.. I have a Kimber eclipse in 45.. nice gun. For carry I would lean toward my 360 PD scandium .357 with 125 grain federals.. A twelve ounce gun that fits into the front pocket and is no hassle to carry all day.
For winter or woods.. the Kimber is fine but I like my cut down (4 inch and despurred and melted) Ruger redhawk in 44 mag with 240 grain hyrdoshocks... If I buy another new handgun ever it will be one of the scandium 44 mags by Smith and Wesson... They are hell on recoil at 20 ounces or so but easy to carry.
lazs
-
What would be the nicest .44 mag???
-
all around or for some purpose you had in mind?
lazs
-
In the end though I still applaud him for what he did cause I believe when he said "move you're Dead" was him telling them what would happen if they moved. They moved.
Apparently the Grand Jury proceedings are sealed. We may find out more in the civil lawsuit though.
Yeah, they moved.... and were shot in the back. It would seem they were moving away which is generally not a life threatening move.
I wasn't there, I admit there could have been a threat.
Still, I think if you really listen to that tape you hear a man that is obviously pissed off, said he didn't even really know the neighbor whose home was burglarized, he told the dispatcher he wasn't going to let them get away and that he was going to kill them before he ever left his own home, communicated that he was aware of the new Texas law that would allow him to kill them and then shot them in the back.
The whole thing sounds premeditated and shooting them in the back, despite the possibility of a threat that many of you raise, puts this entire episode in a very bad light.
There is no way this reflect well on gun owners with the general non-gun populace of the US. Hell, it doesn't sit well with me and I own a bunch of guns and use them, used to have an FFL, am extremely pro 2nd and have a concealed carry permit. I think it stinks and I think it was a bad shoot. What do you think the average Joe Citizen that is fairly neutral on guns would think about this?
And how about the kid in Kaufman county? You guys that defend Horn going to defend the guy that shot him? It was probably a technically legal shoot under Texas law. After all, the kid WAS trespassing. Good shoot? Let me hear you on this one.
-
Here's a link to the Kauffman County news story.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060308dnmetfrosch.5439de4a.html
According to many here trespassing is cause for justifiable homicide.
-
all around or for some purpose you had in mind?
lazs
Hmmm.
Lets say reliability first, then ROF....
-
the sign said,
anybody caught tresspassing
will be shot on sight
so i jumped over the fence
and said to the man
who gave you the riboom!! :salute
from bob and tom
-
angus.. for reliability.. there are many good 44 mag revolvers... Ruger would probly be king of tough and reliable but all the others including taurus and smith are close these days.. hard to find a bad one.
ROF? for handguns it would be any of the double actions.. for carbines.. the lever guns and the ruger semi auto but the ruger has a tiny little 4 or 5 round capacity.. the lever guns hold 11 and you can work em pretty fast and they are smooth and mostly.. light and short. My Henry 44 mag lever gun is not light for it's size but is smooth and fast and handy and probly more accurate than the other lever guns by a little.
lazs
-
carrel.. I do not believe that simple trespass is good enough to shoot someone but it does cause the situation. The property owner is within his rights to be armed. It is up to the criminal in the equation on how it turns out.. he is in the wrong and he should do everything he can to defuse the situation and present no threat to the armed and legal owner.. any threat on his part is stupid and would rightfully cause his being shot.
Thats how I look at it anyway.
lazs
-
I wonder if the trespassing kid in Kauffman country presented a threat.
I wasn't there either but the possibility exists that he was just crossing the lawn unaware of the shooter and the shooter shot him.
There has to be some common sense. From a lot of what has been written here I wonder if there is enough.
-
yes... there has to be some common sense.. that is why our court and jury system still operates on the "reasonable man" premis.
Sure.. some.. and this may be one.. examples end up slipping through the cracks but it is no reason to can the castle doctrine.
That would be like saying that three strikes should be done away with because some poor hardened criminals last strike was knocking down a kid to steal his pizza.
lazs
-
No, the Kauffman county incident is no reason to can the Castle doctrine. I totally agree.
I hope, however, that it will give some pause to the folks in here that seem to think that if a shoot is technically legal the shot should be taken as quickly as possible and tough luck for the dead guy even if he was just running off with your pot of petunias from the front porch.
I guess the problem I have with the Texas law is that it excludes the requirement for a threat to the life of the shooter or a 3rd party. In other words, the Texas law authorizes the death penalty for everything from trespassing on your property to stealing your garden hoe. I can't believe that doesn't sound overly harsh to just about everyone.
Legally kill some one over a stolen garden hoe? C'mon.
-
I`ll just say this on the trespassing and theft issue.
If you come on my property with the intent of theft......or anything of a negative nature you will be held at gunpoint
until your sorry, useless rear end can be hauled off by law enforcement. This is if the local county`s fine officers can tear themselves away from their hangout where they hit on teenage girls........ or conduct their second business.
If at which time you are being held within that time you make any threatening advances, you can give your sould to God because you donut belongs to me.
People work hard and long for their possessions . Sometimes a life time . If Joe Crackhead wishes to buy the ticket here, he will also get the ride.
-
How would you know about the intent?
Maybe there might be an AH'er who wants to meet you :devil
-
I agree with jackal.. If they have broken into your property and come at you while you have a gun pointed at them.... Well.. I doubt even some of the liberals on this board are that dumb or want to meet me that bad... or see if there really is a god.
lazs
-
A threatening advance would justify the use of deadly force.
A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
I don't think anyone has disputed that.
What's in dispute is if someone running off with some replacable mass produced property item should be shot in the back. There have been a few in this thread that seem to think so.
-
A threatening advance would justify the use of deadly force.
I don't think anyone has disputed that.
What's in dispute is if someone running off with some replacable mass produced property item should be shot in the back. There have been a few in this thread that seem to think so.
Texas law also thinks so! if it is reasonable to believe you would not otherwise be able to regain said possessions!! if you dont agree with that you have every right not too shoot!!
-
Yep. I won't. As I said I took some time to think all this through before I got my CCW. After any potential shooting, I have to be able to live with myself and be able to justify killing a human being. A pot of petunias doesn't do it for me.
Feel free to shoot someone stealing your garden hoe though. After all, it's legal in Texas and that's the only excuse you need to open fire.
-
Well the other nice thing about Texas law is that a criminal nor his family members can sue you if you shoot them while they are comitting a crime, so if someone is running off with you stuff, just aim a little low. #4 shot into the back of the calves and they aren't going anywhere, nobody dies, you keep your stuff, the cops get their man, the crook goes to jail when they get out of the hospital, you don't get sued, and all is good.
Of course that's if you have a shotgun handy. I wouldn't go aiming for the legs with a handgun, but then again I would never grab my handgun in a home defense situation either. For me I have to fall back on my LE training from the Coast Guard and that is, "The minimum force needed to compell compliance".
-
enough of that case.. what do you guys think about the price of ammo lately?
Tempt any of you to start reloading?
lazs
-
Some folks do NOT have the intelligence to own a firearm unfortunately.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377861,00.html
-
Rip, when I first saw your post, I thought I'd be duplicating it. Sorry to have read about that one you posted. That's awful. Here's one less horrible... but just as stupid.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378142,00.html
-
I would love to be able to buy and own guns like in the US. We are so limited with what we can have without having many PROBES :O. But we are alowed to have folding stocks???? :huh
-
rip and mom.. both those stories sound fishy. It is almost impossible for a modern revolver to go off if dropped.. they simply won't go off unless the trigger is pulled back.
As for the other..
Most gun "accidents" are to cover a crime or.. something really even more stupid. Like pointing a loaded gun at something you don't want to shoot while your finger is on the trigger. For whatever reason.. it just plays better if you say you were "cleaning the gun" or it went off when it was dropped.
You don't want to say that you lost your temper and shot someone or that you were trying to scare someone and pulled a little tooooo hard on the trigger for instance. better you were cleaning the gun.
How do you clean a fully assembled and loaded gun?
lazs
-
enough of that case.. what do you guys think about the price of ammo lately?
Tempt any of you to start reloading?
lazs
Absolutely, even my 9mm.
-
Wife of police chief shoots at, chases down husband
talk about abuse of the 2nd Amendment?
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69162
-
What abuse of the 2nd would you be refering too?
-
What abuse of the 2nd would you be refering too?
Did you read the article?
Using a firearm to try to settle domestic problems is NOT the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
She was NOT threatened or attacked by her husband!
At least such is NOT stated in the article....
Domestic violence was NOT started by her husband and was NOT an issue.....
In the article she got angry at her husband for something and resorted to using a firearm..........
That IMHO is abusing the right of keeping and bearing a firearms .....
-
Sorry but I can't make the leap that anything she did abused the 2nd. Everything she did was illegal, but an abuse of the 2nd? It could only be an abuse if she uses the 2nd as her deffense and gets away with it. Then I would have to agree with you, but until that happens she just did a bunch of illegal things and used a gun to do them.
-
Sorry but I can't make the leap that anything she did abused the 2nd. Everything she did was illegal, but an abuse of the 2nd? It could only be an abuse if she uses the 2nd as her deffense and gets away with it. Then I would have to agree with you, but until that happens she just did a bunch of illegal things and used a gun to do them.
HMMMM..........
OK here is the problem.......
You don't see it as abuse BUT the media and the gun control crowd LEAP on stuff like this!
So it doesn't matter if it actually is or isn't abuse of her 2nd Amendment rights in that it CAN, and usually is, viewed by many as such.
The argument will be.... she has a right, BUT she misused or abused that right by doing or using that right as she did.
Seen it, or arguments like it, in the media many times. Although until now it has NOT been stated she had the right to keep and bear arms.
The approach is to destroy or remove something or a right by constantly DEMONIZING that issue.
Such actions are a GODSEND to those using that technique.
People can't be trusted to use their rights properly so those rights MUST BE TAKEN AWAY!
The actions of the few are used to destroy the credibility and or rights of others.
Goes all the way back to the if it saves one life crap! (Even though it often cost 10 lives in the long run)
Or it's for the children. (yea right!)
The media has many soooo muddled over all this stuff that far too many just nod their heads and go along with it.
-
HMMMM..........
You don't see it as abuse BUT the media and the gun control crowd LEAP on stuff like this!
The media and the gun control crowd will LEAP on anything from a wind change to a mouse fart.
That`s a good thing. It is bringing them out and showing them for what they really are------>without a clue.
-
rip and mom.. both those stories sound fishy. It is almost impossible for a modern revolver to go off if dropped.. they simply won't go off unless the trigger is pulled back.
As for the other..
Most gun "accidents" are to cover a crime or.. something really even more stupid. Like pointing a loaded gun at something you don't want to shoot while your finger is on the trigger. For whatever reason.. it just plays better if you say you were "cleaning the gun" or it went off when it was dropped.
You don't want to say that you lost your temper and shot someone or that you were trying to scare someone and pulled a little tooooo hard on the trigger for instance. better you were cleaning the gun.
How do you clean a fully assembled and loaded gun?
lazs
I 100% agree with Lazs here. Modern firearms are VERY hard to setoff without pulling the trigger.
There are several semi-automatics that require the trigger be pulled to disassemble them. (Glock, and Springfield XD minus the new "XD(M)"are two I know require the "hammer to be down"). If you fail to check the load status of the firearm before disassembly, this can lead to a "negligent discharge". Note, I did not say "accidental discharge" as the trigger is pulled intentionally.
Terror
-
Lazs concerning reloading. I used to reload my 12 ga. shotgun shells for trap and skeet shooting. Since I've moved to an Apartment I don't think storing powder etc. is a very good idea. Great area....I live in a Park and watch Deer walk through the complex.
I've not priced powder etc. in a long time.
-
The price of components has gone way up along with ammo.. the real killer is brass and jacketed slugs.
I shoot a lot of cast lead slugs and haven't cast any for many years because.. well.. I could buy em already cast by the thousand for about $80 a thousand including the shipping.. now.. it is like $150 for a thousand 250 or 300 grain cast slugs including delivery and even more for some specialty slugs.. some cast cost as much as jacketed even.
It takes all day to cast and size 1,500 or so slugs sooo.. Not really worth the time but.. I am gonna retire soon and I did find a source of free lead soooo..
I bought a good furnace and sizer and molds and stuff again.. I can get some styles I can't buy and.. I am just that much more independent.
Primers and powder have a haz fee these days.. gotta buy primers by the 5,000 or so to make sense.. powder? at least 8 lbs at a time.
A box of 44 mags (50) cost about $25-$35 these days.. my cost, using my own cast slugs is about $3.50 and about $8 using cast slugs I buy.
lazs
-
Lazs.....attended one of Ohios largest Gun Shows in the Cleveland area today.
Ammo at the gunshow was about the same price with little exception. I also found that firearms, handguns at least are up at least 100 dollars on average new and used as opposed to last year.
Lazs...also I looked at Henry Lever actions in my locality (Gander Mountain, Dicks Sporting Goods) and found them at the show 90$ cheaper
then at the local Dealers. (.357mag, .44Mag, and .45 Colt Long). I also looked at the loading components and the Gents that I was with who load told me they had gone up just a little.
-
components are not up that much except for brass and slugs. It is about 50-75% more now for any slugs out there. Lead has really gotten expensive and the shipping is more now.
Powder is about $125 for 8 lbs.. up slightly.. Primers about the same for 5,000 that is about 20% higher but shipping is up and the haz fee is $25
I also wanted to find a slug that shot well in my Henry and in my revolvers. Most of the slugs are too long to feed in the Henry.
lazs
-
components are not up that much except for brass and slugs. It is about 50-75% more now for any slugs out there. Lead has really gotten expensive and the shipping is more now.
Powder is about $125 for 8 lbs.. up slightly.. Primers about the same for 5,000 that is about 20% higher but shipping is up and the haz fee is $25
I also wanted to find a slug that shot well in my Henry and in my revolvers. Most of the slugs are too long to feed in the Henry.
lazs
Henry?? Whad'd you get Lazs?
-
Speaking of reloading...An interesting comment was once made on these boards by a certain someone. They claimed; "there are no such thing as factory reloads". At the time I about fell out of my chair laughing, mostly due to this persons self appointed firearms expert status.
I just picked up a few rounds ammo from a local re-manufacturer of ammo (read factory re-loader), and I noticed something on the ammo cans. They read "Factory Loaded" under the ammo case. Even though the ammo is reloaded. So that would make them "factory reloads". For reference, the new ammo is labeled as such. I Just wanted to clear up that matter now, that this whole thread has been pinned. However, those famous words will stay in my sig line.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q15/Kegger26/PICT0006-1.jpg)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q15/Kegger26/PICT0007-1.jpg)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q15/Kegger26/PICT0008.jpg)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q15/Kegger26/PICT0005-1.jpg)
-
A lot of ammo is "reloaded" in surplus form for some technical reason.. the components are taken apart and then loaded with new powder or whatever but the brass is "new" even tho it may be 50 years old.
I know there are several remanufacturers of ammo but the price is about the same as new ammo. I would rather buy new and get new brass but if I could find it cheap enough I would buy it.
carrel.. I got a Henry "big boy" in 44 mag..
http://www.henryrepeating.com/h006_bigboy.cfm
lazs
-
Well IMHO this deserves it's own thread but it would probably get put here anyways...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/18/the-brady-campaign-to-define-%e2%80%98sensible-gun-laws%e2%80%99/
sensible gun laws..... GEEEEZZZZZ
-
you will never get liberal democrat socialists to define "sensible" gun laws.. they will talk on them for hours but never say a thing.
It would be like me wanting to get elected saying "I am for a womans right to choose but with some sensible restrictions" I would not tell you no matter what... that my "sensible" restriction was no woman under the age of 65 could get one.
lazs
-
The only "sensible" gun law a liberal gun-grabber will accept is a total ban on guns, components and ammunition. With draconian penalties for non-compliance, there would be tens of thousands of honest people in prison and few guns on the street, so that the criminal class would have little trouble preying on the now-defenseless citizenry.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2693290374_9c29ef00c7.jpg?v=0)
-
Got my first Kimber yesterday. Stainless Ultra Carry II. I like the little jewel lots. Its my new carry all the time pistol.
Picked up a 6.8spc upper a couple of weeks ago. Mags were extremely high and hard to find. For ammo I had to order out and didn't have my pick. A lot of it was out of stock. NO ONE at the frickin gun show had ANY 6.8, and I hit evety table.
I'm thinking some units have been out fitted with the 6.8 and the army sucked up all the mags and ammo they could get there hands on. Maybe?
-
I like my Kimber eclipse... I think all ammo is being affected by the war.. brass and lead and copper are all being affected. I would reload for something like the 6.8
I have about 12,000 cases for 45
lazs
-
I like my Kimber eclipse... I think all ammo is being affected by the war.. brass and lead and copper are all being affected. I would reload for something like the 6.8
I have about 12,000 cases for 45
lazs
I am so drenched in reloading gear I cant remember the last time I had to buy brass, bullets, or powder. Usually during the late winter I get going reloading and I probably have more stuff loaded then I will ever shoot. Im sure the war has something to do with it, but like everything else, it never seems to get cheaper. Thats why I buy reloading componants in bulk. I usually whittle down a gun to a few favorite loads and leave it at that.
-
I do the same... I usually have one good medium power heavy cast lead load and one heavy cast load and one factory power jacketed load for my revolvers and then maybe one or two loads for the rifles.
I don't keep a lot of powder on hand but do buy it in 8 lb lots. I try to find one powder like say 4895 that will work with my ought six M1 and my mini 14 223 and my 8 mm mausers. A couple of powders for my handguns.. one medium burn rate like AA#5 and one slow one like 296.. maybe some 2400 and blue dot too.
I like cci primers for the rifles cause they are hard. I like Federal for everything else. Federal are more reliable in my revolvers.
Just when I find a load that shoots good in every 44 I have tho... I buy a Henry and it won't take the longer 250 grain keith bullets so I have to start over finding one that will work in it and the revolvers. Oh well..
lazs
-
Im a .45 caliber guy myself. .45 colt, .45 ACP, .454 Casull, .450 Marlin. It simplifies things and in all my years of shooting, carrying, and hunting, Ive become fond of bullets and calibers that make big entry/exit holes in critters.
Ive always been quite fond of the .44 mag too. Two of the most impressive put downs Ive seen involved the .44 mag "bar shoot" and the .357 mag 125 grn JHP, "OD shoot during robbery". We used to have a lot of guys who carried .44 mags.
While its true the most important thing is where you put the bullet, both self defense and hunting, and its true there are things outside your control. But its also true there is one thing "in" your control and thats the round and caliber you are using. Thing about .44s and .45s is that even chicken brained gangstas know exactly what they are when you pull them out. And well they should cause they will put the lights out in a BG real quick.
I like CCIs for my rifles and use a few different ones for handgun loads. I absolutely love the 300 grn Speer JSP for hunting loads in .44s,.45s, and .454s.
-
The only bulk loads I really keep on hand are 9mm and 5.56. I keep mostly good quality stuff, Lake City 5.56 stuff mostly. As for 9mm I got lucky. I got a ton of defensive loads for free. I have cases and cases of Fed 147gr Hydra-Shok's. I also have cases and cases of Winchester 147gr Ranger Talons. I bought this stuff years ago when a few dept in the area switched from 9mm to .40. Thank you transitions!
-
Yeah thats the beauty of the 9mm. Not only is it a fine self defense caliber but its so cheap to buy in bulk that a shooter can train his brains out with one, shoot often and then shoot a lot.
And training is everything. To this day I love to train.
-
Just curious, what do u guys feel about right to bare arms? hold concealed weps? personally, i wish i could cruise around wit my 12 guage lol, u nvr know when u will b robbed/attacked
-BigBOBCH
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
you might want too read some of the other posts about this, instead of starting a new one
it a pretty hot topic! hence the sticky
-
Just curious, what do u guys feel about right to bare arms? hold concealed weps? personally, i wish i could cruise around wit my 12 guage lol, u nvr know when u will b robbed/attacked
-BigBOBCH
Wyatt Earp had his suits taylor made to hide his sidearms. He felt he was less likely to be forced to use them if they were hidden. I must say I agree with him. It would be safer for everyone if the criminals didn't know who was armed and who wasn't.
P.S. This thread will end up being merged with General Gun Discussion.
-
personally, i wish i could cruise around wit my 12 guage
-BigBOBCH
Just curious......where do you live that you can`t cruise around with your 12 gauge?
-
my .12 is usually in my trunk.
-
I think if you want to wear a short sleeve shirt you should be able to....period.
-
I dont wear long sleeves in summer time at all. T-shirts rule :rock
Fortunately bare arms are not prohibited here in free and democratic Europe ;)
-
The freedom to wear even a tank top should not be infringed upon..
Some of the more stringy tank tops should be worn only by females though.
-
The freedom to wear even a tank top should not be infringed upon..
Some of the more stringy tank tops should be worn only by females though.
Well that depends on the female in question though, some should NOT be allowed to wear anything "stringy".
-
That is true enough.
I've seen some folks wearing the strappy tanktops that should just have some respect for other people though. :eek:
-
Just curious, what do u guys feel about right to bare arms? hold concealed weps? personally, i wish i could cruise around wit my 12 guage lol, u nvr know when u will b robbed/attacked
-BigBOBCH
I think there should be a grammar test before you can carry a weapon.
I exercise my right to bare arms in most seasons except for winter. I then opt for long sleeves and a jacket that fits the climate I happen to be in. I find sleeve length doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not I exercise my carry privileges nor does it affect my ability to access and fire my weapon.
-
I live in AZ. Az is a state where the right to bare arms is strongly supported. Sure some nut cases have tried to get bare arms banned so there will be less instances of skin cancer among children. Other than that, AZ is a right to bare arms state.
-
I think there should be a grammar test before you can carry a weapon.
Agreed
-
(http://6.media.bustedtees.com/bustedtees/mf/2/3/bustedtees.ef270fa215d10509c3fd5a7396959940.gif)
-
Those would be really BEAR arms, and so furry they're not even BARE arms any more.
How about BEER arms :t
-
I just took some pics and figured I'd share.
My Grandfathers Savage Model 99 in .250-3000. Bought new at Western Auto in Waynesboro in either 1946 or 1951. Rotary Magazine, brass ammo counter and cocking indicator.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n238/CoshyX3/Savage250.jpg)
Closeup of the ammo counter and cocking indicator.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n238/CoshyX3/BrassCounter2.jpg)
My collection so far from top to bottom:
Savage 99 in .250, Savage 11 in 7mm-08, Savage 110 in .270, Ruger 10/22 (newest addition), Marlin 782 in .22 Mag, SigSauer P226 in 9mm
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n238/CoshyX3/Collection3.jpg)
Closeup of the Ruger and Marlin
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n238/CoshyX3/RugerMarlin.jpg)
Closeup of the Sig. Been thinking about some better grips. The factory ones are ok, but I'd like something a little better.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n238/CoshyX3/Sig226.jpg)
Home Invaders Beware! If one doesn't get you, the other will!
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n238/CoshyX3/MaceySig.jpg)
-
Nice doggie, nice doggie, hey, owwwww leggo dog, owwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
-
NP with a home-dog, just bring a squeak :devil :t
-
Want to sell the Model 99? Is it chambered .250-3000 ?
I'll be happy to take it off your hands. :)
Oh..its from your Grandfather, "just read that".
Disregard the offer, and I would advise you to one day make sure your Grandson owns it. :salute
-
Want to sell the Model 99? Is it chambered .250-3000 ?
I'll be happy to take it off your hands. :)
Oh..its from your Grandfather, "just read that".
Disregard the offer, and I would advise you to one day make sure your Grandson owns it. :salute
What he said after disregard...
If you can KEEP it in your family.....
-
Want to sell the Model 99? Is it chambered .250-3000 ?
I'll be happy to take it off your hands. :)
Oh..its from your Grandfather, "just read that".
Disregard the offer, and I would advise you to one day make sure your Grandson owns it. :salute
My dad's got one, but it's in a .308. Hasn't been shot much...
-
Here ya go a NEW TREATY?
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2511
-
Was looking at grills. I'm thinking about having a permanent stationary grill put in the back yard. Outdoor-kitchen style... Found this. I don't want this one, but it was pretty amusing. :)
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd34/momof3terrors/real_mans_grill.jpg)
-
My new carry gun...
(http://www.kimberamerica.com/images/pistols/large_stainlessultracarry2.jpg)
.45ACP and it shoots like a dream.
-
My new carry gun...
(http://www.kimberamerica.com/images/pistols/large_stainlessultracarry2.jpg)
.45ACP and it shoots like a dream.
Oh thats a sweetie. Is that the Para Ordinance compact?
-
I believe my Kimber says the same think on the frame.
lazs
-
Kimber. :)
-
My new carry gun...
(http://www.kimberamerica.com/images/pistols/large_stainlessultracarry2.jpg)
.45ACP and it shoots like a dream.
Exactly. I got ,mine a few weeks ago. Love it. I shoot it a little left, but I'm working on it.
It jumps around a bit with that short barrel, so I was thinking of getting a grip with those pronounced finger groves on front. Anyone have any suggestions? Yea or neigh, wood or rubbery, pach or hogue?
-
Exactly. I got ,mine a few weeks ago. Love it. I shoot it a little left, but I'm working on it.
It jumps around a bit with that short barrel, so I was thinking of getting a grip with those pronounced finger groves on front. Anyone have any suggestions? Yea or neigh, wood or rubbery, pach or hogue?
Does the firearm fit your hand well?
You got large hands or small hands when compared to the firearm.
I had a similar problem with 1911, perhaps due to the grip shape and my fairly small hands. (and I was a mechanic for awhile go figure)
Went to VERY thin drip panels and problem solved.
-
Went to VERY thin drip panels and problem solved.
You drip when shooting? :D
-
You drip when shooting? :D
OOOPS typo ment Grip panels......
-
I don't like the rubber grips that are "sticky" they stick to your clothes and hang up on stuff. I have large hands so most handguns, the grips are too small.. I am one of the few who liked the old smith and wesson magna grips.
I like wood or stag. For my Kimber and ruger 44 I have stag grips which are a bit thicker than wood and let my hand fit the gun better. The stag grips also give me a better grip on the gun. I like Ivory but it has to be carved with something to fill the palm like the old Keith style. Ivory, wood and stag all feel better than any other material.
lazs
-
I guess my hands are kinda medium. They wrap around the grip good, but its got no checkering on the front and my pinky kinda hangs off the bottom. When I got a firm two handed grip I shot a good 6 inches left. Also, my trigger finger was ending up in strange places after the shot. Well, not REAL strange, just not where it started out at. I like what you said about the sticky grips catching on clothes Lazs, as this will be my carry all the time pistol, so I may go with a one piece hogue wood grip. That would probably solve most of my problems. Now, I just hafta choose between like 8 different types of wood. HAHA
-
Yep.. because my fingers are so long (my hands are not really so much big as they are long) My trigger finger will protrudes way too far through.. it tends to make me pull shots unless I concentrate on trigger finger placement.
lazs
-
Exactly. I got ,mine a few weeks ago. Love it. I shoot it a little left, but I'm working on it.
It jumps around a bit with that short barrel, so I was thinking of getting a grip with those pronounced finger groves on front. Anyone have any suggestions? Yea or neigh, wood or rubbery, pach or hogue?
If your pulling left, assuming the sights are OK, your issue is probably with grip and/or trigger squeeze.
You could try rubber grips but the compact .45 is still going to buck some. Shoot it an awful lot and get used to it. If you should have to use it in anger you wont notice the barrel jump.
-
Yep.. dry firing is about the best thing you can do.. notice where the sights go when you dry fire. Too much finger will make you pull high and to the left.
handguns are difficult to shoot well. The more ammo you burn up the better off you will be.
lazs
-
Yep.. dry firing is about the best thing you can do.. notice where the sights go when you dry fire. Too much finger will make you pull high and to the left.
handguns are difficult to shoot well. The more ammo you burn up the better off you will be.
lazs
A little warning here! RE: DRY FIRING.........
Snap caps or something that will catch the firing pin MAY be in order here!!!
On SOME firearms dry firing can result in damage to the firearm.
This is probably most true with OLDER firearms.........
-
dry firing centrefires occasionally without using snap caps usually wont cause much problem, at least i've never had any. but a lot of rimfires can be less forgiving when the firing pin slams into the face of the chamber, a broken pin or marred chamber can be the result.
-
One good way to practice, that is if you have a handgun with a flat enough top, is to center a quarter on top of the frame, get and keep your sight picture, and practice dry fireing/trigger control while balancing the coin on top and not dropping it.
-
dry firing centrefires occasionally without using snap caps usually wont cause much problem, at least i've never had any. but a lot of rimfires can be less forgiving when the firing pin slams into the face of the chamber, a broken pin or marred chamber can be the result.
These were both OLDER firerams.
I purchased both used. Got fairly good deals on em both and they functioned well until I dry fired em some. Think the problem was probably already there and just got worse with my use.
Had an older Hammerelli? (spelling) single action 45 that developed a bulge where the firing pin came through the frame. This was the older style with the firing pin attached to the hammer. The kind you did not carry 6 rounds with. That bulge was so bad it made cocking the hammer difficult from drag against the brass. Required repair.
Similar problem developed with an older colt commander and a bulge where the the firing pin came through the frame/chamber would part of the time cause a hang feed with the cartridge rim up against the bulge. Required repair.
I'm fairly sure the NEWER production firearms with the transfer bars and other innovations have far fewer dry fire damage problems.
-
dry firing a 22 rimfire is not a good idea. You will ruin the chamber by peening over some metal with the firing pin. Handguns with the firing pin on the hammer and a bushing in the frame should be ok.. I have never had a problem but if you are worried then use a snap cap.
lazs
-
I ran across something in a G & A magazine article, and I'd like to hear what some of you reloaders' think about the differences' between Mil-spec 5.56mm NATO and commercial grade .223.
The article stated that there is a difference between the lead in the chambers, because .223 rifles' use a SAAMI-grade chamber, and 5.56mm chambers' are Mil-spec. Evidently, it's safe to use .223 in a Mil-spec chamber, but using Mil-spec 5.56mm in a commercial .223 rifle increases' the chances of having something like a Primer-pocket blowout, or blown cartridge-case heads. I'm asking because I've gotten some reloaded ammo that was using 5.56mm mil-spec cases, and I'm not sure if I want to shoot them in my Ruger ranch rifle.
-
Relatively clear explanation here:
5.56 VS .223 Ammunition and Chamber Dimensions
http://www.ar15armory.com/forums/556-223-Ammunition-Chamber-Dimensions-t22582.html
Using commercial .223 cartridges in a 5.56-chambered rifle should work reliably, but generally will not be as accurate as when fired from a .223-chambered gun due to the excessive leade. [3] Using 5.56 mil-spec cartridges (such as the M855) in a .223-chambered rifle can lead to excessive wear and stress on the rifle and even be unsafe, and the SAAMI recommends against the practice.[4] Some commercial rifles marked as ".223 Remington" are in fact suited for 5.56 mm, such as many commercial AR-15 variants and the Ruger Mini-14, but the manufacturer should always be consulted to verify that this is acceptable before attempting it, and signs of excessive pressure (such as flattening or gas staining of the primers) should be looked for in the initial testing with 5.56 mm ammunition.
[/quote[
-
I spent 10 years in the military. Combat veteran. Two special service force tours. Yet I don't own a gun, rifle, slingshot, bow/arrow... heck, I don't even own a knife anymore. I know to respect and fear firearms at the same time - I've seen what they can do from personal experience.
In Canada, our firearms crime is a mere fraction of the USA. Yet we own almost as many weapons per civilian as our southern neighbors. Why is the USA's firearms crime rampant? Could it be a simple lack of social programs to help the poor? Is poverty the #1 killer of our kids, and the #1 feeder for gangs?
Guns and rifles are just a weapon. A butter knife can be a lethal weapon (well, maybe in my hands - but u guys get the point).
If I was a citizen of the USA, I'd be screaming for my local congressman to start properly funding welfare, abortion, mental health, job training, and other programs aimed 100% at the poor. And you guys also need health care for the poor too - 100% free health care for anyone unemployed, homeless, single parent and lower income families. Some of you are probably saying 'we got welfare programs, wtf are u talking about fork.' Compared to Canada, the USA spends as much on social programs as a % of GDP as we do on our military... and that's pretty sad. For those of you thinking about the word 'Socialism' - WFT is wrong with taking care of your people? Canada's figured it out - we're a capitalistic country too but we've managed to balance the needs of our people first, business second.
Canada is in the top 5 for spending on social programs and we have some of the best educated kids, one of the highest age for life expectancy, top five for the lowest deaths of infants and by the UN, considered one of the safest, best places to live in the world.
The US is near the bottom of the top 20 list for industrialized nations. How is that possible for the most wealthy country in the world? Because taking care of your poor has slipped off the radar.
So when one of my Canuck friends starts pointing too many guns and rifles as issues in the USA, point them to the missing social spending. Guns and rifles are just a tool for hunting, for others a hobby for collecting. They are not the issue - poverty is.
BTW - I'm breaking my 'no weapons' rule and getting my Firearms + Restricted license. I'm being given a scoped 308 & a 303, a 12 gauge, and a 16 gauge from my in-law. Hunting season is coming and I love deer and moose meat. :D
:salute
-
Here we go again. Another citizen of a socialist foreign country turning the gun discussion into a "US society" thread.
I was going to type a lengthy response but I figured it would just encourage you. In many ways Canada is just another American state anyways. We pay for you defense, "your military is a bad joke", and you are completley dependant on the economy of your powerful southern neighbor. Eh?
If I was a citizen of the USA, I'd be screaming for my local congressman to start properly funding welfare, abortion, mental health, job training, and other programs aimed 100% at the poor. And you guys also need health care for the poor too - 100% free health care for anyone unemployed, homeless, single parent and lower income families.
I go to work everyday and I see thousands of 19yos with 3 babies from different daddies, on link cards and welfare for life, and with all the free health care they need. But Ive only been living here for 50 years as a citizen so what would I know?......Eh?
But what does any of this have to do with guns? And do you Canadians every talk about Canada up there in Canada? Eh? Or is all you do is obsess about America?
-
mister fork... that all sounds pretty good until you realize that the more we have spent on social programs the worse our crime got.
I would also point you to lovely vancouver BC and their crime.
Apparently, it is something else.. I would say that the war on drugs and the high profitability it caused and the illegal alien problem along with the dissolution of family caused by the welfare state have caused most of the problems.
In the US.. the sad fact is that you can almost certainly avoid any violent crime against you by not being in the large welfare cities and not hanging around areas that are filled with minorities.
lazs
-
Guns for Texas school's teachers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7564654.stm
Anyone see this?
-
I spent 10 years in the military. Combat veteran. Two special service force tours. Yet I don't own a gun, rifle, slingshot, bow/arrow... heck, I don't even own a knife anymore. I know to respect and fear firearms at the same time - I've seen what they can do from personal experience.
In Canada, our firearms crime is a mere fraction of the USA. Yet we own almost as many weapons per civilian as our southern neighbors. Why is the USA's firearms crime rampant? Could it be a simple lack of social programs to help the poor? Is poverty the #1 killer of our kids, and the #1 feeder for gangs?
Guns and rifles are just a weapon. A butter knife can be a lethal weapon (well, maybe in my hands - but u guys get the point).
If I was a citizen of the USA, I'd be screaming for my local congressman to start properly funding welfare, abortion, mental health, job training, and other programs aimed 100% at the poor. And you guys also need health care for the poor too - 100% free health care for anyone unemployed, homeless, single parent and lower income families. Some of you are probably saying 'we got welfare programs, wtf are u talking about fork.' Compared to Canada, the USA spends as much on social programs as a % of GDP as we do on our military... and that's pretty sad. For those of you thinking about the word 'Socialism' - WFT is wrong with taking care of your people? Canada's figured it out - we're a capitalistic country too but we've managed to balance the needs of our people first, business second.
Canada is in the top 5 for spending on social programs and we have some of the best educated kids, one of the highest age for life expectancy, top five for the lowest deaths of infants and by the UN, considered one of the safest, best places to live in the world.
The US is near the bottom of the top 20 list for industrialized nations. How is that possible for the most wealthy country in the world? Because taking care of your poor has slipped off the radar.
So when one of my Canuck friends starts pointing too many guns and rifles as issues in the USA, point them to the missing social spending. Guns and rifles are just a tool for hunting, for others a hobby for collecting. They are not the issue - poverty is.
BTW - I'm breaking my 'no weapons' rule and getting my Firearms + Restricted license. I'm being given a scoped 308 & a 303, a 12 gauge, and a 16 gauge from my in-law. Hunting season is coming and I love deer and moose meat. :D
:salute
Well Mr. Fork. Social programs may fix the problem we have with our minorities. However, a good bit of us believe that it was liberals and the social programs that caused the problem in the first place.
One of the main pieces of evidence of this was Liberal Social programs ruining (mainly) the black family unit. In a progressive move back from the 50's on, the liberals decreed that single mothers shall receive a lot of welfare money. At first this meant mother's bearing out of wedlock. However, the social workers soon began to check on the families. If the father was around the house when the workers came, the benefits for the mother instantly decreased. Soon the father's learned to skip the days when the workers came. Soon after that the fathers didn't come home as often. And not too much later, they didn't come at all. All of this was so that the single mother could receive the best benefits.
In an attempt to help the less fortunate, we have only helped people to game the system, and only helped the families to encourage the fathers to never come around. Until the point where it was the norm that there is no father.
Now is it a freaking surprise that generations of kids grew up fatherless and are now causing problems?
-
Guns for Texas school's teachers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7564654.stm
Anyone see this?
Yep. About time. Some are finally "getting it".
It is my hope that this will start a trend across the state and carry over to , not only schools, but other establishments and
areas that have been designated Criminal Playgrounds. ( Read that Gun Free Zones)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5945430.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5945430.html)
North Texas school district will let teachers carry guns
Associated Press
Aug. 15, 2008, 4:27PM
HARROLD, Texas — A tiny Texas school district may be the first in the nation to allow teachers and staff to pack guns for protection when classes begin later this month, a newspaper reported.
Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District approved a district policy change last October so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements.
In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.
Superintendent David Thweatt said the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff's office, leaving students and teachers without protection. He said the district's lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target.
"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog," Thweatt said in Friday's online edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Thweatt said officials researched the policy and considered other options for about a year before approving the policy change. He said the district also has various other security measures in place to prevent a school shooting.
"The naysayers think (a shooting) won't happen here. If something were to happen here, I'd much rather be calling a parent to tell them that their child is OK because we were able to protect them," Thweatt said.
Texas law outlaws firearms on school campuses "unless pursuant to the written regulations or written authorization of the institution."
It was unclear how many of the 50 or so teachers and staff members will be armed this fall because Thweatt did not disclose that information, to keep it from students or potential attackers. Wilbarger County Sheriff Larry Lee was out of the office Thursday and did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment, the newspaper said.
Barbara Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Association of School Boards, said her organization did not know of another district with such a policy. Ken Trump, a Cleveland-based school security expert who advises districts nationwide, including in Texas, said Harrold is the first district with such a policy.
The 110-student district is 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth on the eastern end of Wilbarger County, near the Oklahoma border.
-
On the Texas guns for teachers thing... I have said from the beginning of the school shootings that the answer was to allow those teachers who wished, to carry concealed.
I find it highly amusing that so many here will tell us what saints teachers yet.. will not trust em with a firearm.
It is the curse of the left.. they hate all people.. how could they not? If you don't trust your neighbor with a firearm to defend himself and others... How can you say you have a high opinion of people?
lazs
-
I wish my wife could carry on school property. She can not even leave her gun in her car. She has a GFL here, and has a little Ruger LCP she keeps in her purse when she is not working. She is a great shot and she has been lucky enough to have been trained by some of the best firearms instructors in the state. She can almost out shoot me. My years of training is the only edge I have over her.
The two campus police officers that work at her school are both from the county police dept. I happen to be good friends with their range master. I have seen their qualifying scores and my wife could out shoot them with no problems.
With the proper training, teachers with guns is not such a bad idea. IMO.
-
Seems the Dems still don't get it or perhaps they just don't want to?
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080817/OPINION02/808160319
-
Seems the Dems still don't get it or perhaps they just don't want to?
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080817/OPINION02/808160319
I think this needs to be repeated here for the clickingly challenged.
"Barack Obama was a director of the Joyce Foundation, the primary benefactor of the Violence Policy Center whose goal is to ban handguns and assault weapons like the "deadly" Remington model 1100,(sarcasm intended)."
-
Seems the Dems still don't get it or perhaps they just don't want to?
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080817/OPINION02/808160319
Oh they get it, and they are more afraid of it than anything else on the planet. How can they instill their dreams of the perfect utopian society where everything is pink lemonade, satin sheets, and everyone is nice and polite to everyone else because they say it MUST be that way, when you have angry backwoods bible thumpers clinging to their guns and sense of personal freedom as hard as they do?
The average law abiding armed American citizen is the biggest threat to the Democratic party and their twisted view of the perfect orderd society, and they KNOW it.
Thank God for my bible, and God Bless Sam Colt!!!
-
God made Man. Sam Colt made them equal.
-
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 | 10:26 AM POINT MARION, PA -- An 85-year-old woman boldly went for her gun and busted a would-be burglar inside her home, then forced him to call police while she kept him in her sights, police said.
"I just walked right on past him to the bedroom and got my gun," Leda Smith said.
Smith heard someone break into her home Monday afternoon and grabbed the .22-caliber revolver she had been keeping by her bed since a neighbor's home was burglarized a few weeks ago.
"I said 'What are you doing in my house?' He just kept saying he didn't do it," Smith said.
After the 17-year-old boy called 911, Smith kept holding the gun on him until state police arrived at her home in Springhill Township, about 45 miles south of Pittsburgh.
The boy will be charged with attempted burglary and related offenses in juvenile court, Trooper Christian Lieberum said. He was not identified because of his age.
"It was exciting," Smith said. "I just hope I broke up the (burglary) ring because they have been hitting a lot of places around here."
-
how dare she endanger that poor missunderstood youth.
Someone could have gotten hurt. She should have hid in the closet and hoped for the best. I have heard that in england now they just pile up all the good stuff in a heap in the living room and lock themselves in the bedroom. much more "civilized".
lazs
-
how dare she endanger that poor missunderstood youth.
If she had just taken the time to talk to the lad and give him the numbers and locations of social programs in his area
that could have helped him understand his confusion and to heal the wounds.
Now he will be traumatized for life.......................bu t his defense lawyer will have something to fall back on in case he
progresses from simple burglary to .......well.......say violent house invasion.
-
I spent 10 years in the military. Combat veteran.
If I was a citizen of the USA, I'd be screaming for my local congressman to start properly funding welfare, abortion, mental health, job training, and other programs aimed 100% at the poor. And you guys also need health care for the poor too - 100% free health care for anyone unemployed, homeless, single parent and lower income families.
:salute
thank god your not a citizen of the U.S.!!
if we did what you ask, why would anyone want to work? after all, i work my arse off every day for what i have, yet you would take all that and give it to someone who ,out of wedlock has a kid, or doesn't want to work because he or she can live off the money you take from me? no reason to get married if your going to pay me to sit at home and raise a child! can't go to work to try and make an extra buck because the gov. might think i want too contribute to others instead of living of there labor!
this breeds a bad idea,
i will explain,,
i am disabled have been since i got out of the service, yet i own a pretty successfully business that i work at ,
allot harder than my doctor ever said i should, and yes i could draw social security,, but i chose not too!
the reason i choose not too is because i can make allot more for me and my family by working as it is,
but if you raise taxes on me for doing so,, then the incentive is gone,
i could just stop working and go back on disability and why wouldn't i !
capitalism works better if you tax those who produce , less! they in turn grow new jobs for others who wish to work turning the money over more times thereby taxing the same money over and over to gain more revenue!
now to be fair yes you should provide for your disabled, and single mothers who have been left out to dry, and social security is a very important thing as well!
but you do not want to make the unemployed so comfortable that they would not want better than they have!!
the first unemployment benefits were the best ones , they required you to work , if able, for the gov. I.E. building roads or other services for the people that paid you,,, "NO free ride", yet the ACLU and other groups got involved and said you cant make them work!it's not fair, don't you know they are unemployed
sorry for this hijack i didn't start it but i could not just sit by and not respond!
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/2871365877.jpg)
picture of my latest piece,,, ruger hunter, i sure do like it
-
whiskey.. I have to agree.. I am much happier that you are a citizen instead of mr fork.
In fairness.. I know some brits who have left the socialist oppression of their native country and come here and they are hard working and share the views of people like yourself.. they are also gun owners now. They get a light in their eyes when they say how fun it is to show visiting friends and relatives from the old country their guns. They get a kick out of the reaction.
lazs
-
August 22nd.
Not a very pleasant anniversary, but one that needs to be remembered for those of us that believe in personal freedom , rights and the very essence of what this country is supposed to stand for.
Think before you vote. You probably wouldn`t enjoy Socialism leaning towards communism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On August 22, the second day of the siege, an FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, shot and wounded Randy Weaver in the right arm, while he was lifting the latch on the shed to visit the body of his dead son. Then, as Weaver, his 16-year-old daughter Sara, and Harris ran back toward the house, Horiuchi took a second shot, which struck and wounded Harris, and killed Vicki Weaver. Vicki Weaver was standing behind the door through which Harris was entering the house, holding their 10-month-old baby Elishiba in her arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a sidenote , Weaver`s old `51 Chevy flatbed is for sale on eBay currently.
-
That entire Weaver episode disgusted me about the FBI and the Fed. As if I needed more disgust.
And over what? A sawed off shotgun he sold some snitch as a personal favor? In that part of the country a sawed off shotgun is like a traffic ticket.
Anyway heres the story behind this Federal screwby. http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/weaver.shtml
-
I wonder how the recent Judgements at the Supreme Court RE: Weapon ownership will pan out at city level? In particular, DC and San Francisco.
I get emails from the NRA with updates, but I think that this will drag on for a while yet,
-
Just curious, what do u guys feel about right to bare arms? hold concealed weps? personally, i wish i could cruise around wit my 12 guage lol, u nvr know when u will b robbed/attacked
-BigBOBCH
Here you don't need a concealed carry to walk the streets with a shotgun. I've kept a shotgun in my truck for years.
-
rich.. glad to see that some law enforcement is overboard to you... the sawed off shotgun thing is a $5 tax evasion.
Weaver swears that he cut the barrel down to just over the 18" legal limit. they said it was an eighth of an inch under that.
lazs
-
rich.. glad to see that some law enforcement is overboard to you... the sawed off shotgun thing is a $5 tax evasion.
Weaver swears that he cut the barrel down to just over the 18" legal limit. they said it was an eighth of an inch under that.
lazs
An interesting book................
"Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party ISBN 1-888766-07-7
http://www.javelinpress.com/
Although buying it direct from him is kinda difficult!
If you read what is acceptable payment...............
-
rich.. glad to see that some law enforcement is overboard to you... the sawed off shotgun thing is a $5 tax evasion.
Weaver swears that he cut the barrel down to just over the 18" legal limit. they said it was an eighth of an inch under that.
lazs
You have to weigh everything on this job. In other words is the crime worth a certain risk, and a certain effort, and the arrest worth putting innocents in jeapardy? And nothing, NOTHING is more dangerous then an upwardly mobile LEO Boss who wants the pinch to make themselves look like a star.
Was the Weaver thing "worth" the resource deployment, money spent innocents put in danger? Was a shotgun saw 1/4" to short such a big thing in the first place? Of course it wasnt! The G just wanted wood on the guy to turn him into a snitch. That was the bottom line.
And let alone they trampled his rights in the first place. Then they deploy the ninjas and it turns into a screwby with a kid killed as well as his mother holding her baby. I dont believe in 2nd guessing other coppers for a bad shoot. Ive seen bad shoots happen to better coppers then I am. The fact is it could happen to any of us. But the Weaver case was far more then a "bad shoot". I believe those behind it should have been charged criminally.
Police officers in America are not soldiers. We are public servants and have no business making war on our citizens. The morons behind the Weaver case decision making should have been held criminally accountable.
This was another screwball Janet reno caper wasnt it. Oh man was she a bad news bimbo.
-
rich... on this.. we are in complete agreement.
lazs
-
We just got our old Weatherby Centurion back in time for opening day of Dove Season. It works great. Nothing better than a 30 y/o semi-auto working just as good as it has since day one.
(We thought it was broke for good, but after 30 years of shooting, it turned out something had slightly bent)
-
A lot of the guns I shoot are pre war. I just bought a Smith and Wesson military and police in 38 special for my girlfriend because she had to have it after shooting it. ended up costing me another 80 bucks tho for eagle rosewood classic grips.
lazs