GUNS GUNS GUNS.

[gigman]

Ok guys, anything to do with guns let's put it here.

For or against?

New laws and legislation?

Pics of your favorite guns?

Post up people.

I know your shy, so, I'll post up first.
http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt49/gigman45/PICT0493.jpg

[4nik8]

Guns are great.
Guns are good.
Let us thank them for our food.
By their barrels
we all are fed.
Give us Colt
Some high power lead.

[gigman]

Congress votes to allow guns in national parks
By MATTHEW DALY
5-20-2009
story link

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a stinging defeat for gun-control advocates, Congress has voted to allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The House approved the measure, 279-147, on Wednesday, one day after the Senate acted.

A total of 105 Democrats in the House joined 174 Republicans in supporting the gun measure, which essentially restores a Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded guns in national parks earlier this year. The measure, which is included in a bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies, allows licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law.

The vote was a bitter disappointment for gun-control proponents, who watched as a Democratic-controlled Congress handed a victory to gun-rights advocates that they did not achieve under Republican rule. Many blamed the National Rifle Association, which pushed hard for the gun law.

[Clipped]

Democratic leaders decided not to remove the gun provision after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was able to insert it into the popular credit card measure. Lawmakers and aides said there was not enough time to send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee — where it could be removed without a vote — and still get it to President Barack Obama by Memorial Day as he has requested.

[Clipped]

In a statement after the vote, Pelosi called inclusion of the gun measure unfortunate and said it undermines the nation's gun safety laws.

"There is no compelling argument for replacing the Reagan administration's rules regarding guns in national parks, and certainly not as part of legislation designed to protect Americans during difficult economic times," Pelosi said.

I love the fact that the Democrats finally stepping and done something right for a change. Thumbs up for change in the right direction.

I just hate that Pelosi bitch!
http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt49/gigman45/Smilies/sFi_machinegunsdual.gif

[4nik8]

......which essentially restores a Bush administration policy..........


GO OBAMA.


Keep on bringing us that CHANGE you promised.

WOO HOO!!!

Thank GOD this administration is doing everything differently!!!!!!!

[CULPRITE_INC]

is that a m1 carbine?

[4nik8]

Texas Senate OKs guns on college campus bill



AUSTIN — A bill to allow college students and employees to carry their concealed handguns on campus won final passage today on a 19-12 vote in the Senate.

The bill would allow college students who are at least 21 years old and licensed to carry concealed handguns to bring those weapons into state campus buildings. University hospitals and athletic facilities would remain off limits to guns.

It applies to all universities and colleges in the state, but private institutions would be able to opt out.

Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, said he introduced the bill because of the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, where he said victims were “picked off like sitting ducks.”

“I would feel personally guilty if I woke up one morning and read that something similar had occurred on a Texas campus,” he said.

If the Senate gives the bill final approval — which could happen today — the controversial measure could go back to the House, where it died last week because lawmakers did not make the deadline to debate it.

However, legislative rules do allow House lawmakers to take up the Senate version if they do it before midnight Tuesday.

Exactly half of the House members, 75 of 150, have signed on as supporters of the bill, a legislative priority of the Texas State Rifle Association, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association.

Only 11 U.S. universities allow handguns on campus. In Texas, college students are split on the issue and several university administrators have expressed reservation.

Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, tried to amend the bill to allow all schools to opt in if their governing boards wanted to allow concealed guns on campus. Colorado took that approach, she said, with some universities allowing guns and others not.

“This is a common-sense approach to the concealed handgun issue. Allow local control,” she said. Her amendment was defeated.

Katie Kasprzak, a recent graduate of Texas State University, testified in favor of the bill before legislative committees.

She completed the required course and shooting test to get licensed to carry a concealed weapon, but wasn’t able to carry it at night when she walked alone on campus.

“If someone wants to protect themselves, they should be guaranteed that right whether they are on a college campus,” said Kasprzak.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, said the bill could confuse university police, who now know that a person with a gun on campus is violating the law.

“When there is an alcohol-related tragedy on campus, you don’t hear claims that giving students a 12-pack is the solution,” he said.

“Yet, when it comes to gun-related incidents, we seem to think that putting more guns in the mix will lead to a good, rather than bloody outcome,” Ellis said.


God Bless TEXAS!

[gigman]

Texas Senate OKs guns on college campus bill

God Bless TEXAS!

Yes indeed my friend.

“If someone wants to protect themselves, they should be guaranteed that right whether they are on a college campus,” said Kasprzak.
My point exactly!

[CULPRITE_INC]

is that a m1 carbine?

is it?

[gigman]

is it?

Yes it is Culp.

[CULPRITE_INC]

military issue or model?

[4nik8]

Iraq Gun Porn: Which Guns Suck, Which Guns Rock



Which commonly used weapons in Iraq do our brave soldiers give the thumbs up to and which do they thumb their nose at? Here is a review.

Even though I've been pretty much out of The Jawa Report loop for the past month or so, I do get a ton of e-mails daily. From time to time I get an e-mail worthy of sharing with you. This is one. It was forwarded by a reader in the Navy, Mike, who in turn got it from a friend of his in the Marines. You may have seen it making the rounds already. The review of the weapons are one recently returned Marine's opinion [name removed to protect his identity] and does not necessarily mean a consensus has formed. If you scroll to the end you'll also see an assessment of our enemiy's capability as well as those of our allies.

As the son and grandson of two very fine Marines, let me wish all those fighting in Iraq all the best and God speed in a final victory over the enemies of the United States of America.

------

1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum
powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. [The Marine] says you feel
filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is
more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems
also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and
weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the
weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm
(.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over
there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.
Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate
use.

2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine
gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic
jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly.
(that's fun in the middle of a firefight).

3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for
self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys
hit multiple times and still in the fight.

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing
houses to good effect.

5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun,
developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!).
Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down.
Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being
dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the
structure over there.

6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still
worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts
their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.

7) The ..45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there.
Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one.
With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso
hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK
military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are
being re-issued en masse.

8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a
modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight
Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the
sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and
accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle
suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy.
Definitely here to stay.

10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in 308 but some in 300 win mag.
Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance. Snipers have been used
heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour
in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for
confirmed kills with OVER 100.

11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and
can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an
AK-47 round. The bad Hot as shit to wear, almost unbearable in the
summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for
head shots when ever possible. All the bullshit about the "old" body armor
making our guys vulnerable to the IED's was a non-starter. The IED
explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in
most cases.

12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular
performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little
enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at
night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.

13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are
Surefire's, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations.
[The Marine] carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance
are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it's the WWII and
Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.

Bad guy weapons:

1) Mostly AK47's The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the
desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt fed
light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly
shoots like shit. Undisciplined "spray and pray" type fire. However, they
are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. (Iran,
again)

Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in Jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now.

2) The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple,
reliable and as common as dogshit. The enemy responded to our up-armored
humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still
killing a lot of our guys.

3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet
anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in [The Marine's]
area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery
shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the
explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank.
Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately,
they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iran ian) specifically
designed to penetrate armor.

Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.

4) Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The soviet era 122mm rockets (with
an 18km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of [The Marine's] NCO's lost a leg
to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire". [The Marine's] base
was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often
at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (It did). More of a
psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump
out of vehicles, fire a few rounds, and then haul ass in a matter of
seconds.

5) Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell
and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They use handheld GPS
units for navigation and "Google earth" for overhead views of our positions.
Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent.

Their explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night vision is
rare. They are very careless with their equipment and the captured GPS units
and laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured.

Who are the bad guys?:

Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate
mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly
"foreigners", non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world
(and Europe). Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of course, the knowledge
and complicity of the Syrian govt.) , and then travel down the "rat line"
which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been
hitting hard for the last few months.

Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as suicide
bombers or in "sacrifice squads". Most, however, are hard core terrorists
from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.) These are the
guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The
Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are supposedly the most ruthless and
the best fighters. (they have been fighting the Russians for years). In the
Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and
led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating
the Iraqi local govt.'s, the police forces and the Army. The have had a
massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early
80's. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long
ago.

Bad Guy Tactics:

When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses kicked every
time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges were very common
earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice 8-10 man
teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing Ak's and RPG's
directly at our bases just to probe the defenses.

They get mowed down like grass every time. ( see the M2 and M240 above).
[The Marine's] base was hit like this often. When engaged, they have a tendency to
flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious
last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that more often
than not. These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha Whiskey Romeo's (Allah's
Waiting Room). We have the laser guided ground-air thing down to a science.
The fast mover's, mostly Marine F-18's, are taking an ever incr easing toll
on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and
AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire,
especially at night.

Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all.

Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That is why we're seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide bomber shit.

The new strategy is simple: attrition.

The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and (especially) Mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cant reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.).

The first thing our guys are told is "don't get captured". They know that if
captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the internet. Zarqawi openly
offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman. This
motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a shit about the
war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common
criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the
death. Surrender is not an option.

The Iraqi's are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a shit.
Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are
getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers,
en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake.
Many Iraqi's were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the
police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intel because the Iraqi's are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians.

The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

According to [The Marine], morale among our guys is very high. They not only
believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are
stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they
almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised
and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership.

Bottom line though, and they all say this, there are not enough guys there
to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cant stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US bases there).

[gigman]

I'm going to have to read that one in shifts.^^^^^
Good read though.


military issue or model?

Yep. Google it Culp. Wikipedia.
Google=M-1 carbine. .30cal

[CULPRITE_INC]

I know the gun, one of my favorites, just wondering if it has seen action in ww2 or Korea ect

[4nik8]

YouTube - Re: Guns suck

[Angeleyes]

As a mom, I have to add my 2 cents. I don't mind guns. Honestly I don't. However I Do NOT want them in my house. I have 4 young children and it is just too much of a risk. I know all the "pro-gun" people say, well if you teach them respect...., no that doesn't cut it for me. Keep them the hell away from my children and we are fine. Bigpapa hunts, good for him, however his gun is kept at my parents house where it is away from my children. I do believe the whole "people kill people, not guns kill people" thing to a point however, if we didn't have billions of guns on the street, people wouldn't have the means to kill as easily. I do believe that the laws are meant to protect people, even if all don't follow them. I don't like guns, but I feel that people have the right, as long as they are safe and respect them, to own them if they choose to do so.

That is my drunk ass soap box discussion of the night.

[Deems]

Ok guys, anything to do with guns let's put it here.

For or against?

New laws and legislation?

Pics of your favorite guns?

Post up people.



Im for gun ownership.

[4nik8]

As a mom, I have to add my 2 cents. I don't mind guns. Honestly I don't. However I Do NOT want them in my house. I have 4 young children and it is just too much of a risk. I know all the "pro-gun" people say, well if you teach them respect...., no that doesn't cut it for me. Keep them the hell away from my children and we are fine. Bigpapa hunts, good for him, however his gun is kept at my parents house where it is away from my children. I do believe the whole "people kill people, not guns kill people" thing to a point however, if we didn't have billions of guns on the street, people wouldn't have the means to kill as easily. I do believe that the laws are meant to protect people, even if all don't follow them. I don't like guns, but I feel that people have the right, as long as they are safe and respect them, to own them if they choose to do so.

That is my drunk ass soap box discussion of the night.



:applause::applause::applause::applause:

Except for the not having them in the house to protect you and your kids from nasty, mean, bad people that would break in, rob you and kill you.

They make locks for the guns, gun safes, and putting them where the kids can't reach them is always a good idea.

But, hey, at least you're open minded enough to not give your man shit about wanting to own guns to hunt with.

:thumbsup:

[gigman]

This is the latest on why they had to go before congress in the first place.

Bi-Partisan Congressional Majority
Moves to Restore Second Amendment in National Parks

On Wednesday, NRA-backed legislation to restore the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in national parks and wildlife refuges passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 279-147. Today, the measure was signed into law and, as specified in the legislation, will take effect in nine months, on February 22, 2010. This was a major repudiation of the gun control community's anti self-defense agenda.

The current Department of Interior (DOI) regulations were amended by the Bush Administration in 2008, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges. However, early this year, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule. NRA has been working for the past several years in the regulatory, legal, and legislative arenas to achieve this policy change.

[Stormcrow]

IF I were to purchase another firearm, this is the one.

SMITH & WESSON M627 .357/.38(Yeah, it's an "8 Shooter")
690

[para]

Guns are for pussies who can't fight with their fist.

[gigman]

IF I were to purchase another firearm, this is the one.

SMITH & WESSON M627 .357/.38(Yeah, it's an "8 Shooter)
690I've been looking at those myself Storm. Good choice.:thumbsup:

[gigman]

OKLAHOMA: Employee Privacy Reform Bill Sent to Governor Henry! On Monday, May 18, House Bill 1025 was sent to Governor Brad Henry (D) for his consideration. HB 1025 would prohibit private employers, public employers, and public officials from inquiring about a job applicant's firearm ownership. Please contact Governor Henry and respectfully urge him to sign HB 1025. To contact the Governor's office please call (405) 521-2342.



PENNSYLVANIA: "Lost or Stolen" Ordinance Revived in Lancaster, Pennsylvania! paEarlier this week, Mayor Richard Gray (D) reintroduced a proposal that would require gun owners to report a lost or stolen firearm within a 72-hour period, or face fines and possible imprisonment. If enacted, Gray's proposal would violate Pennsylvania's state preemption law and turn innocent law-abiding victims into criminals. The proposal will be considered by the Lancaster City Council on Tuesday, May 26. A vote by the city council is expected on Tuesday, June 9. Please attend the May 26 City Council meeting to show your support for the Second Amendment and, if possible, voice your opposition to this illegal and unwarranted proposal. For more information on the City Council meeting and additional contact information, please click here.

[Stormcrow]

PENNSYLVANIA: "Lost or Stolen" Ordinance Revived in Lancaster, Pennsylvania! paEarlier this week, Mayor Richard Gray (D) reintroduced a proposal that would require gun owners to report a lost or stolen firearm within a 72-hour period, or face fines and possible imprisonment. If enacted, Gray's proposal would violate Pennsylvania's state preemption law and turn innocent law-abiding victims into criminals. The proposal will be considered by the Lancaster City Council on Tuesday, May 26. A vote by the city council is expected on Tuesday, June 9. Please attend the May 26 City Council meeting to show your support for the Second Amendment and, if possible, voice your opposition to this illegal and unwarranted proposal. For more information on the City Council meeting and additional contact information, please click here.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but how is requiring people to be responsible for their weapons an infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights? If your gun comes up missing, why wouldn't you report it?

[4nik8]

691

[gigman]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but how is requiring people to be responsible for their weapons an infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights? If your gun comes up missing, why wouldn't you report it?If someone was to steal one of my firearms it may be weeks before I know it. It's the 'making law abiding citizens the criminal,' that is the problem. It's just another step in trying to put more pressure on gun owners.

I'm not really debating that issue, just thought you might be interested.

[Stormcrow]

If someone was to steal one of my firearms it may be weeks before I know it. It's the 'making law abiding citizens the criminal,' that is the problem. It's just another step in trying to put more pressure on gun owners.

I'm not really debating that issue, just thought you might be interested.

Why would it take you weeks to notice that you were missing a firearm??? :ooh:

I think that this a good idea myself, you should know damn well where your guns are. Everyday. That's part of the responsibility of owning a weapon that could take a persons life.

[StoneTheCrow]

It's 6:04 PM, do you know where your guns are?

[4nik8]

Unless of course a person was on vacation, maybe?

What difference does it make what the time frame is?

As long as the person does it is what matters.

THAT'S what they're after.

[gigman]

Why would it take you weeks to notice that you were missing a firearm??? :ooh:

I think that this a good idea myself, you should know damn well where your guns are. Everyday. That's part of the responsibility of owning a weapon that could take a persons life.I love my firearms, but I don't take them out every day and gaze at them. Geezzzz!!!:neutral:

[Deems]

YouTube - Chris Rock - Gun Control

[theresa_k3]

Ok guys, anything to do with guns let's put it here.

For or against?

New laws and legislation?

Pics of your favorite guns?

Post up people.

I know your shy, so, I'll post up first.
http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt49/gigman45/PICT0493.jpg

All right, ONE of those is NOT yours.

[Stormcrow]

Unless of course a person was on vacation, maybe?

What difference does it make what the time frame is?

As long as the person does it is what matters.

THAT'S what they're after.

Being on vacation would be, in my eyes, an extenuating circumstance.

What difference does the time frame make? The point of this would be to alert the authorities that there is a gun on the street, in the hands of a criminal. And that this gun, while registered to you, is no longer in your possession. In this, time would be of the essence.


Who knows? Somebody may have used it to steal a purse.:wink:

[4nik8]

Being on vacation would be, in my eyes, an extenuating circumstance.

What difference does the time frame make? The point of this would be to alert the authorities that there is a gun on the street, in the hands of a criminal. And that this gun, while registered to you, is no longer in your possession. In this, time would be of the essence.


Who knows? Somebody may have used it to steal a purse.:wink:

Exactly.

Do you honestly think that people who own guns legally NEED legislation to cover their asses by doing what is essentially common sense?

This bill is nothing more than a step towards having to license weapons which will make it easier to take them away.

[gigman]

Exactly.

Do you honestly think that people who own guns legally NEED legislation to cover their asses by doing what is essentially common sense?

This bill is nothing more than a step towards having to license weapons which will make it easier to take them away.

True that is.

[Stormcrow]

True that is.

If you need a license for a friggin' car you most CERTAINLY should need a license to carry a man killer.

[4nik8]

Wrong.

[rc2james]

If you need a license for a friggin' car you most CERTAINLY should need a license to carry a man killer.

I find it interesting that you would compare guns to cars since you stand a greater chance of dying in an automobile crash than being killed by a firearm. Even in the most violent of inner cities, the most shootings occur with illegally obtained weapons over illegal drugs.

Passing more laws to control something that is already illegal is comparable to trying to save the Titanic by rearranging the deck chairs. It may look good but it really is pointless. We already have laws keeping guns from convicted felons but if cocaine and heroin are plentiful despite laws against them, guns would be the same, except the felons would have guns and people obeying the law would not.

Anyone reading this post stands a greater statistical chance of premature death due to poor living habits which result in death from disease or accident.

[4nik8]

I've already explained that.

He still seems to think guns are bad and that all laws concerning them make sense because everyone knows laws make things better.

[gigman]

I find it interesting that you would compare guns to cars since you stand a greater chance of dying in an automobile crash than being killed by a firearm. Even in the most violent of inner cities, the most shootings occur with illegally obtained weapons over illegal drugs.

Passing more laws to control something that is already illegal is comparable to trying to save the Titanic by rearranging the deck chairs. It may look good but it really is pointless. We already have laws keeping guns from convicted felons but if cocaine and heroin are plentiful despite laws against them, guns would be the same, except the felons would have guns and people obeying the law would not.

Anyone reading this post stands a greater statistical chance of premature death due to poor living habits which result in death from disease or accident.

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause: :applause::applause::applause:

[gigman]

He still seems to think guns are bad and that all laws concerning them make sense because everyone knows laws make things better.

Once again dude, Liberal thinking.:squigglemouth:
More laws. They thank that is the answer to everything.

[gigman]

If you need a license for a friggin' car you most CERTAINLY should need a license to carry a man killer.

A license to drive a care says that you are a competent driver.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.:neutral:

[Aper]

Why don't they treat guns like busines and finance.....completely deregulate them and leave them devoid of laws.

Oh wait...people might actually be able to use them to further their own end AGAINST the government instead of being a slave TO it.

[Stormcrow]

I've already explained that.

He still seems to think guns are bad and that all laws concerning them make sense because everyone knows laws make things better.

Once again dude, Liberal thinking.:squigglemouth:
More laws. They thank that is the answer to everything.
Wrong

I was saying that the Penn Law to force gun owners to be responsible for their weapons by letting the authorities know their weapon is now in the hands of a criminal was a good thing.

But no, you're right of course, responsibility has NOTHING to do with owning a gun.
A license to drive a care says that you are a competent driver.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.:neutral:

Wait, are you actually saying that one should EARN the right to drive, but we should all just have guns? That's just plain idiocy. By your logic, mentally unstable people, blind people, retards, people with a criminal record etc...should have the right to arm themselves. There HAS to be a line somewhere.

Not too long ago, a mentally unstable individual went on a killing spree not too far from my home. He used his LEGALLY OBTAINED AUTOMATIC WEAPON to slaughter a shitload of innocent people. But that's all OK right? I mean, there was no reason he shouldn't HAVE those weapons, he was after all an American citizen, and it was his "God Given Right" ...

[4nik8]

Do you honestly think that people who own guns legally NEED legislation to cover their asses by doing what is essentially common sense?





I was saying that the Penn Law to force gun owners to be responsible for their weapons by letting the authorities know their weapon is now in the hands of a criminal was a good thing.

But no, you're right of course, responsibility has NOTHING to do with owning a gun.

So...you're going to force legal gun owners to do what they would do anyway?

Wonderful idea!

If it weren't for laws to make people do things to protect themselves from what might happen once a gun was stolen.....why....they'd have NEVER thought to have reported it stolen.

Thank GOD for people that legislate common sense.

Of course, that's all it is and it would NEVER have an ulterior motive behind it. That would be unheard of.

[Stormcrow]

So...you're going to force legal gun owners to do what they would do anyway?

Wonderful idea!

If it weren't for laws to make people do things to protect themselves from what might happen once a gun was stolen.....why....they'd have NEVER thought to have reported it stolen.

Thank GOD for people that legislate common sense.

Of course, that's all it is and it would NEVER have an ulterior motive behind it. That would be unheard of.


If everybody did so on a regular basis, there would no need for the law. But instead crimes are committed with guns, and when the registered owners are questioned, all they have to do is say "Ummm...yeah...that was stolen...yeah...didn't think to report it at the time...my bad."

Thank GOD for guys in their tin foil hats, or the rest of us would take the innocuous laws lying down.

[StoneTheCrow]

If everybody did so on a regular basis, there would no need for the law. But instead crimes are committed with guns, and when the registered owners are questioned, all they have to do is say "Ummm...yeah...that was stolen...yeah...didn't think to report it at the time...my bad."

Thank GOD for guys in their tin foil hats, or the rest of us would take the innocuous laws lying down.

I like to take my innocuous laws in a recliner with a cold beverage.

[4nik8]

If everybody did so on a regular basis, there would no need for the law. But instead crimes are committed with guns, and when the registered owners are questioned, all they have to do is say "Ummm...yeah...that was stolen...yeah...didn't think to report it at the time...my bad."

Thank GOD for guys in their tin foil hats, or the rest of us would take the innocuous laws lying down.

I can never tell when you're being cute or ignorant.

I'm going with just trying to be cute....

OF ALL the deaths committed by guns....exactly how many do you honestly think are done with unreported stolen hand guns from PRIVATE owners?

YEah...pretty minuscule.

As for your "tin foil hat" comment....Take a look at the laws that they are trying to pass. Taken one at a time and argued from a head in your ass position makes them seem benign.
Taken collectively it's pretty clear what's going on.
Reclassifying weapons as assault weapons, reclassifying ammo as explosives, trying to force companies to ID each bullet, or outright outlawing of weapons.

Yeah...a fella has to be really reaching to think this Liberal assed gov't ain't doing nothing but making us safer from legal gun owners because we all know its THAT group and not ILLEGAL gun owners that are shooting up the streets and killing people all over the country.

[Tawni]

Angeleyes...I raised my three the same way and believed exactly the same way...refused to have a gun in my house and that worked well for me. One of the problems was I no doubt didn't know how to work one nor a desire to learn. However, my daughter married an MP/now police man and my granddaughter is fully fully fully aware that she not only knows a safe way to handle her daddy's gun IF SHE ABSOLUTELY HAD TO...she is smart enough, was at 5 to not mention to any friends where the gun is. As for putting the gun out of the reach of a child...away somewhere perhaps but IF it is for your protection and you have it up on a closet shelf or not loaded and locked safety and you have an intruder...I am not sure why you even have the gun because the odds of you getting to it before the intruder gets to you or hurts someone are nil to none.

Yes, I have a gun now, yes I know how to handle it safely and shoot it accurately and no it is not (usually) locked away unless I have company for more than a day... Do I believe we should be licensed...yes. Of course they should hand out a license to have kids or at leasts require a class or two but they don't.

As for that 36 hour rule? I live in a house with two adults...I know where my gun is if I need it...do I go look there every day? Hell no....it is unreasonable. Do I check on it...of course I do or it won't work when and if I need to use it. To say we wouldn't report it as soon as we knew is silly...but to make it the owners fault if it was not reported in 36 hours is also stupid. It is kind of like saying you know exactly where your car keys are 24/7/365 of course you don't. You know you hung them up but are you so sure the friend of you kid didn't take em when you weren't looking and will come back and kill someone with your car later while you are asleep.

I lived near DC long enough to know it is not legal guns that are involved in the majority of robberies, killings or woundings...its the illegally obtained ones and they are very very easy to get.

[Stormcrow]

I can never tell when you're being cute or ignorant.

I'm going with just trying to be cute....

OF ALL the deaths committed by guns....exactly how many do you honestly think are done with unreported stolen hand guns from PRIVATE owners?

YEah...pretty minuscule.

As for your "tin foil hat" comment....Take a look at the laws that they are trying to pass. Taken one at a time and argued from a head in your ass position makes them seem benign.
Taken collectively it's pretty clear what's going on.
Reclassifying weapons as assault weapons, reclassifying ammo as explosives, trying to force companies to ID each bullet, or outright outlawing of weapons.

Yeah...a fella has to be really reaching to think this Liberal assed gov't ain't doing nothing but making us safer from legal gun owners because we all know its THAT group and not ILLEGAL gun owners that are shooting up the streets and killing people all over the country.

Yep, the Democrats are out to get you by making people take responsibility for their weapons.:headslap:

I will never understand why you feel that firearms should be completely unregulated...you know what they do right?

You should know however, that you all ARE changing my mind about guns. I now think they should outlaw them, specifically to prevent guys like you from having them. Your outlook on them is fucking scary.


PS. I am NOT being cute. Nor am I being ignorant. A firearm is dangerous in the wrong hands. I define the wrong hands as anyone who thinks that guns solve problems, or that people are born with an inalienable right to carry one and "ain't nobody gots a right to be nosey bouts it!"

[Tawni]

inalienable no....civil right yes. btw I think there are way left and way right on most subjects/laws/opinions and personally I think responsible is somewhere in the middle of any issue.

[Stormcrow]

inalienable no....civil right yes. btw I think there are way left and way right on most subjects/laws/opinions and personally I think responsible is somewhere in the middle of any issue.

Despite popular opinion, THAT is where I stand.

[gigman]

Not too long ago, a mentally unstable individual went on a killing spree not too far from my home. He used his LEGALLY OBTAINED AUTOMATIC WEAPON to slaughter a shitload of innocent people. But that's all OK right? I mean, there was no reason he shouldn't HAVE those weapons, he was after all an American citizen, and it was his "God Given Right" ...
Dude you are so off the mark.
That is a totally different deal and very isolated incident.

Stay focused. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! They have a RIGHT to KEEP and BARE arms. If you commit a FELONY, you loose that right.
It is a RIGHT not a privilege.

All the brains in the world but, you have no common sense whatsoever.:squigglemouth:

[Stormcrow]

Dude you are so off the mark.
That is a totally different deal and very isolated incident.

Stay focused. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! They have a RIGHT to KEEP and BARE arms. If you commit a FELONY, you loose that right.
It is a RIGHT not a privilege.

All the brains in the world but, you have no common sense whatsoever.:squigglemouth:

He was law abiding, and perfectly stable...'till he went on a killing spree. No record whatsoever.

Therefore, you say he had a right to carry the gun he used when he snapped. And I'm the one with no common sense? Nice call.

I feel that it should be a privilege, not a right. If you cannot be found to be "sane" why should you have the right to carry a gun?


And there is nothing isolated about it. Don't you watch the news? Nobody who shoots up a school steals their guns. They buy them.

[4nik8]

Yep, the Democrats are out to get you by making people take responsibility for their weapons.:headslap:

I will never understand why you feel that firearms should be completely unregulated...you know what they do right?


First, I NEVER said they should be unregulated.
Second, it's not the LEGAL owners that are doing the majority of murders, rapes, assaults etc with fire arms.

As for what they do? Yeah I know what they do. In every area where concealed weapons permits goes UP.... crime goes DOWN.

And as for your joke about legislating responsibility....thanks for the belly laugh.

An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

John R. Lott, Jr.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.


Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?

Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.

Question: Wouldn't allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostile—screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?

Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.

Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?

Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

Question: Aren't you playing into people's fears and prejudices though? Don't politicians pass these shall-issue laws to mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban minority crime?

Lott: I won't speculate about motives, but the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Question: What about other countries? It's often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.

Lott: The data analyzed in this book is from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.

Question: This is certainly controversial and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you. How will you respond to them?

Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.

All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.

[4nik8]

And there is nothing isolated about it. Don't you watch the news? Nobody who shoots up a school steals their guns. They buy them.

Bull shit.

Columbine come to mind? The impetus for legislation concerning assault weapons and the bitch of is they were HUNTING rifles that were used and STOLEN from the grand fathers house.

As for who's going to snap and who isn't...how the hell are you going to determine that?

How many of THOSE were on meds pushed by our gov't and the pharmaceutical companies?

Are you seriously trying to say that ALL people need to be regulated based on the select few in society that would find a way to kill any way?

Are you aware that LESS than 25% of ALL MURDERS is committed with a hand gun?

AND....since only 25% are committed with a hand gun, of that FEW.....how many are committed with hand guns that were stolen and UNREPORTED?

What was the need for this bill again?

Oh yeah...to make us all safe from irresponsible hand gun owners.

In essence, this bill is designed as nothing more than a deterrance for legal gun ownership.

Because, on the off chance a gun was stolen and used in a crime and somehow traced back to the owner (assuming the gun was found and not kept) and the owner failed to report it in a timely manner (for what ever reason) that 1-2% of all crimes will have a person charged.
So what if it's not the murderer him/herself.

[4nik8]

and personally I think responsible is somewhere in the middle of any issue.

Despite popular opinion, THAT is where I stand.



Riiiiiiight. Since when is completely outlawing them "somewhere in the middle"?


I now think they should outlaw them, specifically to prevent guys like you from having them. Your outlook on them is fucking scary.

[4nik8]

Thank GOD for guys in their tin foil hats, or the rest of us would take the innocuous laws lying down.

Yeah...gee. What the hell was I thinking?

Our government would never do anything to infringe on our rights, right?

Psst...bury your head and don't think about the Patriot Ac or any of it's infringements in the name of "safety"

Oh...and don't even consider HB 387 that completely USURPS the 4th amendment if I choose to exercise the right given to me by the 2nd amendment!!!!!!!!!

HB387 would severely restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms and magazines and would require that present owners of these items register them with the State Police and have to be licensed to own them. It also would allow the State Police to physically inspect private homes for compliance!

Gee....what the hell was I thinking?

[4nik8]

SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION AN OBAMA SLAP AT SECOND AMENDMENT
For Immediate Release: 5/26/2009

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Second Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court is a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”

Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be release under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.

“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information,” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not eviscerated.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

[4nik8]

To those who would rather law abiding citizens not have access to them, a few statistics to show exactly how "bad" fire arms are and what they "do" ....

Statistics are valuable tools, since they are able to summarize an argument in a few numbers, and are able to present a good picture of the problem when used honestly. Here are some statistics that spell out major parts of the gun-rights battle.

* There are 129 million privately owned firearms in the United States according to the September, 1997 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.
* There are an estimated 65 million handguns in private circulation in the United States. (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 9/1997)
* The fastest growing group of gun owners is women, according to Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns.
* Firearms are used defensively roughly 2.5 million times per year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun (Targeting Guns).
* The accidental firearm death rate is at it's lowest point since records were started nearly 100 years ago according to Injury Facts 2000 from the national Safety Council.
* Motor-vehicle accidents, drowning, suffocation, and fires each kill more children under the age of fifteen than do firearms.
* Less than one handgun in 6,500 is ever used in a homicide.

http://saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq#1

[Stormcrow]

BWA-HAAA-HAAAAA!


I'm sorry, but I swear to fucking god, we JUST had this argument. I'll also point out that you just posted an entire fucking page of this debate all by yourself, and at least once replied to a post you already replied to. Calm the fuck down zippy.

I will in fact reply to a single statement of yours, then I am retired from the gun debate for a while.

First, I NEVER said they should be unregulated.

That's the only thing you HAVE said.

[4nik8]

BWA-HAAA-HAAAAA!


I'm sorry, but I swear to fucking god, we JUST had this argument. I'll also point out that you just posted an entire fucking page of this debate all by yourself, and at least once replied to a post you already replied to. Calm the fuck down zippy.

I will in fact reply to a single statement of yours, then I am retired from the gun debate for a while.



That's the only thing you HAVE said.




I see. Because I reply with a lot of information and make an argument you can't refute....I must be wound up?? I guess that makes sense to someone.

And, NO...I have NOT been saying they should be unregulated.

I SAY asinine laws needn't be made.

If you want to make laws harsher regarding the illegal use of fire arms, have at it.

But to make LEGALLY owning a fire arm harder in an effort to stem the crimes of ILLEGAL use is fucking RETARDED!

But then again....we are talking about Liberals here.

[StoneTheCrow]

I think what they need to be on the lookout for are Doctors with guns, that's a ticking time bomb.

[4nik8]

I made a thread about it..

[gigman]

I think what they need to be on the lookout for are Doctors with guns, that's a ticking time bomb.
Everyone has a right to keep and hare arms, even Doctors. What excludes them from protecting themselves?:neutral:

[StoneTheCrow]

Everyone has a right to keep and hare arms, even Doctors. What excludes them from protecting themselves?:neutral:

Did you see anywhere in my post saying Doctors shouldn't own guns? No, you didn't. I said we should be on the lookout for gun toting doctors cause they're twice as likely to kill a mufukka.:neutral::neutral:

[StoneTheCrow]

I'd like to have one of these,I don't think it would be very good for home protection but it sure we be nice to have it incase the need were to arise. LoL

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60-mg.jpg

[gigman]

I'd like to have one of these,I don't think it would be very good for home protection but it sure we be nice to have it incase the need were to arise. LoL

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60-mg.jpg

That's old school, they have a better one than that.:wink:

[gigman]

Gun Control
Barack Obama at a recent rural elementary school assembly in East Texas, asked the audience for total quiet. Then, in the silence, he started to
slowly clap his hands once every few seconds, holding the audience in total silence.
Then he said into the microphone, 'Children, every time I clap my hands together, a child in America dies from gun violence.'
Then, little Richard Earl, with a proud East Texas drawl, pierced the quiet and said: ''Well, dumbass, stop clapping!'

[CULPRITE_INC]

LMAO!

[Deems]

YouTube - Johnny Dangerously - Moronie Addresses the Court

[4nik8]

TOP 10 REASONS WHY SOME MEN FAVOR HANDGUNS OVER WOMEN.




#10 - YOU CAN TRADE AN OLD 44 FOR A NEW 22.

#9 - YOU CAN KEEP ONE HANDGUN AT HOME, AND HAVE ANOTHER FOR WHEN YOU'RE ON THE ROAD.

#8 - IF YOU ADMIRE A FRIEND'S HANDGUN, AND TELL HIM SO, HE WILL PROBABLY LET YOU TRY IT OUT A FEW TIMES.

#7 - YOUR PRIMARY HANDGUN DOESN'T MIND IF YOU KEEP ANOTHER HANDGUN FOR A BACK UP.

#6 - YOUR HANDGUN WILL STAY WITH YOU EVEN IF YOU RUN OUT OF AMMO.

#5 - A HANDGUN DOESN'T TAKE UP A LOT OF CLOSET SPACE.

#4 - HANDGUNS FUNCTION NORMALLY EVERY DAY OF THE MONTH.

#3 - A HANDGUN DOESN'T ASK, "DO THESE NEW GRIPS MAKE ME LOOK FAT?

#2 - A HANDGUN DOESN'T MIND IF YOU GO TO SLEEP AFTER YOU USE IT.

And, the number one reason a handgun is favored over a woman...

#1 - YOU CAN BUY A SILENCER FOR A HANDGUN !!!

[Deems]

deer hunting after Obama and his gun rules.....

873

[4nik8]

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

I Thought you might appreciate this . . .

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun con trol.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
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.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964
to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun co ntrol in 1970. From 1971 to
1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975
to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
---- -------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

[4nik8]

874

[4nik8]

875

[CULPRITE_INC]

That's old school, they have a better one than that.:wink:

post it up bitch!

[rrmommy]

Guns seem an obsession on this site. It seems to me that a lot less people were dying when we settled our problems with a good ole brawl. I think people who settle problems with guns are pussys. Use your fists! You can defend guns in homes and on campus by saying that we have the right to defend ourselves...but if gun control was not already so "loose"...we would not need guns to protect ourselves. GUNS KILL...YES people pull the trigger...but the Bullet is what does the damage. I bet a lot less people would be responsible of murder, burglary, rape...etc. if guns were not so readily available to begin with.

[StoneTheCrow]

Guns seem an obsession on this site. It seems to me that a lot less people were dying when we settled our problems with a good ole brawl. I think people who settle problems with guns are pussys. Use your fists! You can defend guns in homes and on campus by saying that we have the right to defend ourselves...but if gun control was not already so "loose"...we would not need guns to protect ourselves. GUNS KILL...YES people pull the trigger...but the Bullet is what does the damage. I bet a lot less people would be responsible of murder, burglary, rape...etc. if guns were not so readily available to begin with.

Not really, just arguing who's right and wrong is an obsession. :tongue:

[4nik8]

I bet a lot less people would be responsible of murder, burglary, rape...etc. if guns were not so readily available to begin with.


Are you kidding me?

Guns are only used in 4% of all crimes, and only 20% of all violent crimes. ~ National Crime Victim Survey


What do you think STOPS those crimes?


According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender's home.

Of the defensive uses of hand guns, about 8 percent of the defensive uses involved a sexual crime such as an attempted sexual assault. About 29 percent involved some sort of assault other than sexual assault. Thirty-three percent involved a burglary or some other theft at home. Twenty-two percent involved robbery. Sixteen percent involved trespassing.

So, I guess you could say you'd be right.

A lot less criminals would be held responsible for murder, rape, burglary etc if it weren't for hand guns.

[rrmommy]

I think that people would not be so brave to commit the crimes without their gun(false sense of strength and courage). In your quote it mentions stun guns and pepper spray. I love thes ideas for self defense. They get the job done without any permanent damage or deaths.

[4nik8]

I think that people would not be so brave to commit the crimes without their gun(false sense of strength and courage). In your quote it mentions stun guns and pepper spray. I love thes ideas for self defense. They get the job done without any permanent damage or deaths.

You also breezed past the fact that only 4% of crimes are committed with a fire arm.

What are the other 96% using anyway?

You use what makes you feel safe. I'll use what makes me feel safe.

Instead of taking a chance on him being able to withstand either the stun gun or pepper spray....I want him down where he can't do me any further harm.

As long as you don't count the heart attacks and what not...they're completely benign.

[rrmommy]

To me...Guns= Death...not safety. I hope that there is better control on firearms in the very near future. It's ok Archie...you stick with your archaic views...the streets aren't gettin any safer.

[4nik8]

To me...Guns= Death...not safety. I hope that there is better control on firearms in the very near future. It's ok Archie...you stick with your archaic views...the streets aren't gettin any safer.

The streets aren't getting any safer and that's a reason for me to NOT want to own a fire arm for self protection?!?

Make me a sammich, Edith.

[theresa_k3]

To me, guns do not equal death. Guns do not kill, people kill. I have grown up all my life around guns. I do not fear them, I have a respect for them. I am teaching my children the same thing. I soon will be working on getting my concealed carry license. I have my own handgun. I wanted it for my own safety and to protect my family.

[StoneTheCrow]

To me, guns do not equal death. Guns do not kill, people kill. I have grown up all my life around guns. I do not fear them, I have a respect for them. I am teaching my children the same thing. I soon will be working on getting my concealed carry license. I have my own handgun. I wanted it for my own safety and to protect my family.

Don't listen to gig and nik, if a guy tries to steal your purse, just shoot him in the legs a few times so we won't have to read 500 pages about it.:wink:

[theresa_k3]

Don't listen to gig and nik, if a guy tries to steal your purse, just shoot him in the legs a few times so we won't have to read 500 pages about it.:wink:

I promise you won't have to read that much about it. And if a guy tries to steal my purse, I would not shoot him, there is a much better defense against that.

[StoneTheCrow]

I promise you won't have to read that much about it. And if a guy tries to steal my purse, I would not shoot him, there is a much better defense against that.

Well c'mon now, I didn't say not to shoot him at all. A thief deserves to be shot a little,all I'm saying is wound him some. A few hits to the legs, maybe a good flesh wound to the upper shoulder somewhere.:smile:

[theresa_k3]

If he is stealing my purse, I did not say I would not wound him. But there is another way to wound him with him being that close, now if he was running away I might have to shoot him.

[StoneTheCrow]

If he is stealing my purse, I did not say I would not wound him. But there is another way to wound him with him being that close, now if he was running away I might have to shoot him.

Great, I knew I could count on ya. High fives all around.

[4nik8]

If he is stealing my purse, I did not say I would not wound him. But there is another way to wound him with him being that close, now if he was running away I might have to shoot him.



Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hahahahaha.

Damn. Whatta gal!!

[theresa_k3]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hahahahaha.

Damn. Whatta gal!!

Thanks, I will take that as a compliment.

[4nik8]

Thanks, I will take that as a compliment.

Oh, but it was a compliment.

[rrmommy]

If he is stealing my purse, I did not say I would not wound him. But there is another way to wound him with him being that close, now if he was running away I might have to shoot him.
I hope you were kidding:squigglemouth:

[Stormcrow]

I hope you were kidding:squigglemouth:

About what? Nutting him? Or Shooting him?







(And I don't think she was kidding)

[gigman]

I hope you were kidding:squigglemouth:She will be taught to shoot to kill. There will be no wounding involved.
Yes she was kidding. He wouldn't have a chance to run away.:neutral:

[rrmommy]

Kick in the nuts...good! Shooting in the back...MURDER!!!...Ya wonder why I don't like guns...Psychos carry them around with their trigger happy fingers.

[gigman]

Kick in the nuts...good! Shooting in the back...MURDER!!!...Ya wonder why I don't like guns...Psychos carry them around with their trigger happy fingers.That is why you don't carry a gun because you're a psychotic.:neutral:

[gigman]

Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is where our government has failed miserably.:squigglemouth:

[rrmommy]

That is why you don't carry a gun because you're a psychotic.:neutral:

I don't believe that I was the one saying I would shoot someone in the back.

In our society the phrase "stabbed in the back" referrs to someone that we don't choose to associate with because they are not trustworthy. But to shoot in the back? You are all singing their praises. It is a cowardous act and is MURDER (by no means acceptable)!

[theresa_k3]

I don't believe that I was the one saying I would shoot someone in the back.

In our society the phrase "stabbed in the back" referrs to someone that we don't choose to associate with because they are not trustworthy. But to shoot in the back? You are all singing their praises. It is a cowardous act and is MURDER (by no means acceptable)!

So you would what tell them to turn around so you were facing them when you shoot them? Just like if someone ever breaks into your home while there, I want to be able to protect my family, you think if someone broke in while I was home and I pulled a gun on them that they are going to just stand there, I don't think so, they are going to try and get away. Or should I tell them stop and turn around so you can face me while I shoot you and protect me and what is mine? That makes sense.

[theresa_k3]

This is mine that Gig bought me to use and carry.

[Stormcrow]

So you would what tell them to turn around so you were facing them when you shoot them? Just like if someone ever breaks into your home while there, I want to be able to protect my family, you think if someone broke in while I was home and I pulled a gun on them that they are going to just stand there, I don't think so, they are going to try and get away. Or should I tell them stop and turn around so you can face me while I shoot you and protect me and what is mine? That makes sense.

But if they are running away, as opposed to following through with the crime, why would you shoot them?

[theresa_k3]

But if they are running away, as opposed to following through with the crime, why would you shoot them?

The whole thing started if they took my purse, if they took something that belongs to me, then YES I would shoot them. I did not say if they did not take anything and then ran away, sorry I should have clarified that. If they TAKE something that belongs to me, then yes I would.

[Entropy]

Kick in the nuts...good! Shooting in the back...MURDER!!!...Ya wonder why I don't like guns...Psychos carry them around with their trigger happy fingers.

I think "trigger happy" is presumptuous. I prefer "prepared".
The fact remains that responsible gun owners are the best defense to a world of people who would take advantage of weakness. It is because of gun owners that the crime levels don't grow out of control.

I'll give you an example of what I'm saying here:
I live in the New England area. There's a very good reason you don't see home invasions occurring on a regular basis. Anyone with half a brain knows people are raised around weapons here and most are in possession of firearms in their homes. Anyone who thinks they're going to barge into a home and have their way with the residents is sadly mistaken. Ask any criminal if they would rather break into a home in Yuppieville USA as opposed to Texas, and I'm sure you'll get a definite lopsided answer.

The Constitution provides a way for the people individually and as a whole to protect themselves against anyone or anything that infringes their personal freedoms and rights. It's my right to walk down the street armed and expect to not get robbed or beaten. It is also my right to protect my well being to a point. Shooting someone in the back with the purpose of killing them would only be warranted if the suspect was heading toward innocent bystanders or your children, for example, and posed a threat to them.

Nothing changes the fact if the crime isn't committed, you wouldn't have to worry about getting shot in the back. Crime is a gamble. You try to commit a crime against someone who is armed, your odds go way down. There shouldn't be a loophole that says if you rob someone who has a gun, you should get away with the attempt because they have to watch you run away.

Just my thoughts.
And the forefathers.

[4nik8]

Nothing changes the fact if the crime isn't committed, you wouldn't have to worry about getting shot in the back. Crime is a gamble. You try to commit a crime against someone who is armed, your odds go way down. There shouldn't be a loophole that says if you rob someone who has a gun, you should get away with the attempt because they have to watch you run away.

Just my thoughts.
And the forefathers.

This has been my point all along.

Apparently there are those that think if the criminal is quick enough to turn and run that there should no longer be the option to shoot because all they did was "steal your shit".

I guess it's ok to be robbed of what you have on you or in your home.
That's no big deal.

[4nik8]

Ya wonder why I don't like guns...Psychos carry them around with their trigger happy fingers.


http://www.crowsnestforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1070


:bigsmile:

[Blood]

Question....Who in their right mind would opt to RUN when a gun was being pointed at them? haha
That is the stupidest response i've ever heard of. Anyone that knows a gun is being pointed at them and then chooses to run like hell deserves to get shot.

Everybody knows that it's kinda hard to out run bullets.. The safer thing to do would be to freeze, drop everything and try to look at harmless as possible or you WILL get shot.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SCfwBkF65oY/SBfTwejEG6I/AAAAAAAACv8/UBFca3cXpi4/s320/T-Shirt-Don%27t+Run+or+You+Will+Just+Die+Tired.jpg

[rrmommy]

This has been my point all along.

Apparently there are those that think if the criminal is quick enough to turn and run that there should no longer be the option to shoot because all they did was "steal your shit".

I guess it's ok to be robbed of what you have on you or in your home.
That's no big deal.

You are not God and it's not your call to make. You do not get to decide who lives and who dies.

The law calls it murder. Doesn't matter what you think of it...it's murder. Murderers get the death penalty! Theifs do not!

[Stormcrow]

You are not God and it's not your call to make. You do not get to decide who lives and who dies.

The law calls it murder. Doesn't matter what you think of it...it's murder. Murderers get the death penalty! Theifs do not!

But according to the "Castle Doctrine" (coming soon to a state near you), peoples lives are less important than possessions.

And these stupid fuckers call us liberal. The way I see it, we're more "Pro Life" than they could ever be. Their only concern is, apparently, their guns. So when we cry foul over somebody being killed with Willful Intent and getting away with it over a TV or what not they scream "Anti American Gun Hating Liberals!!!" When in fact, the issue was never about guns. It was about legalizing murder.

[gigman]

You are not God and it's not your call to make. You do not get to decide who lives and who dies.

The law calls it murder. Doesn't matter what you think of it...it's murder. Murderers get the death penalty! Theifs do not!Nik is not god?:headslap:
Geezzz and I always thought that nikki was the 'god of this world.':xd:

You are such a pathetic bleeding heart little liberal. Always worried about the bad guys and not the people trying to protect their lives and property.

Where is it going to stop? The bad guys are winning here because of government that thinks just like you.:squigglemouth:

[Stormcrow]

Nik is not god?:headslap:
Geezzz and I always thought that nikki was the 'god of this world.':xd:

You are such a pathetic bleeding heart little liberal. Always worried about the bad guys and not the people trying to protect their lives and property.

Where is it going to stop? The bad guys are winning here because of government that thinks just like you.:squigglemouth:

The argument is not about bad guys/good guys. I think we're all in agreement that you should be able to protect your family & yourself by any means necessary. But if you intentionally kill somebody who did not threaten your physical well being, or that of those under your care, you should damn well be tried for murder. Because you sir, do NOT have the right to decide who lives or dies based on your judgment of their actions.

I am defending Life. You are defending Stuff. Hmmm...

[Entropy]

Murderers get the death penalty! Theifs do not!

Then they can keep robbing you.
They're not coming near me.



Alternate note:

So let's say someone robs you and grabs your wallet or purse. You pull your weapon, they take off. You fire warning shots. They disappear with your ID, address, and pictures of your family.

Is that not a threat to more than just stuff?


There's a million what-ifs. Point is you have very limited time to make a decision. You'll never know how you'll react until faced with a situation. Even trained professionals crack under pressure and make poor decisions.

Again, the initial crime is the problem. What stems from the initial crime should be a matter of chance. You take your chance, you get what's coming.

People need to stop making the criminal the victim.

[Stormcrow]

Then they can keep robbing you.
They're not coming near me.



Alternate note:

So let's say someone robs you and grabs your wallet or purse. You pull your weapon, they take off. You fire warning shots. They disappear with your ID, address, and pictures of your family.

Is that not a threat to more than just stuff?


There's a million what-ifs. Point is you have very limited time to make a decision. You'll never know how you'll react until faced with a situation. Even trained professionals crack under pressure and make poor decisions.

Again, the initial crime is the problem. What stems from the initial crime should be a matter of chance. You take your chance, you get what's coming.

People need to stop making the criminal the victim.

Why is the persistent argument "Criminals Deserve to die, they took that chance?" Nobody is defending the scumbag. Some of us want both scumbags to pay is all. We are referring to WILLFUL INTENT TO KILL over property. You cannot validate that with "what ifs." Why? Because it's murder, plain and simple.

[4nik8]

We are referring to WILLFUL INTENT TO KILL over property. You cannot validate that with "what ifs." Why? Because it's murder, plain and simple.
You're wrong again.

Evidence? State laws.

Now, there are some idiotic states that agree with positions like yours.

Arkansas, for example.

In THAT bleeding heart, backwards assed state, you have to HIDE IN YOUR FUCKING BEDROOM when a criminal breaks in.

Only if he tries to get in your BEDROOM are you then allowed to shoot.


ARE YOU SHITTIN' ME?

I gotta hide in my fucking room, in my OWN house, if someone breaks.
Even if he's carrying a knife, it's illegal to shoot the mother fucker anywhere but coming in your room.

THAT'S where Liberals try and take you.
Protect the criminal at all costs from these bad people with guns.

[Stormcrow]

You're wrong again.

Evidence? State laws.

Now, there are some idiotic states that agree with positions like yours.

Arkansas, for example.

In THAT bleeding heart, backwards assed state, you have to HIDE IN YOUR FUCKING BEDROOM when a criminal breaks in.

Only if he tries to get in your BEDROOM are you then allowed to shoot.


ARE YOU SHITTIN' ME?

I gotta hide in my fucking room, in my OWN house, if someone breaks.
Even if he's carrying a knife, it's illegal to shoot the mother fucker anywhere but coming in your room.

THAT'S where Liberals try and take you.
Protect the criminal at all costs from these bad people with guns.

No.

You just don't get it. I have said time and again that I am all for you defending your life and property. My argument is against having a right to intentionally kill somebody who hasn't physically threatened you.

As the Castle Doctrine is currently worded, it would take exactly ZERO effort to get away with premeditated murder. How can a law that opens the door to that be right? Simply change the provision that says it's a-ok to murder over property and the law is glorious.

Nobody is trying to protect the criminals, we're just trying to enforce laws of decency on worse criminals. We do things YOUR way, and soon we'll be having legal gunfights in the street to settle bar tabs. THAT'S where "conservatives" try to take you. ;)

[4nik8]

No.

You just don't get it. I have said time and again that I am all for you defending your life and property. My argument is against having a right to intentionally kill somebody who hasn't physically threatened you.

As the Castle Doctrine is currently worded, it would take exactly ZERO effort to get away with premeditated murder. How can a law that opens the door to that be right? Simply change the provision that says it's a-ok to murder over property and the law is glorious.

Nobody is trying to protect the criminals, we're just trying to enforce laws of decency on worse criminals. We do things YOUR way, and soon we'll be having legal gunfights in the street to settle bar tabs. THAT'S where "conservatives" try to take you. ;)

Premeditation?

Am I to believe that when a criminal is killed it's because the victim set the robbery up?

You're proposal of settling bar tabs is a little over the top though.
I foresee less robberies, assaults, attempted rapes etc if this law goes through.

Evidence? Crime statistics in areas where people bear arms and have concealed weapons permits.

[rrmommy]

I don't think you guys are listening. It's not about protecting criminals.

If someone broke into my home, I have 2 small children, and yes I would do all in my power to protect them. I would kill the fucker without a second thought. BUT...he is clearly invading my personal space. He is in my home and I have no idea what his intentions are. He could be there looking for a dollar or he could plan to sacrifice my entire family. So YES....protect yourself and your family. They call this self defense. The criminal was trespassing.

But a purse snatcher is a completely different scenario. He clearly wants only your purse...that is why he is running away. Your life is not in any danger. So the point in shooting him now is what? The $100 bucks I have in my purse is worth more than your life? Because now you are worse than him. He was a petty thief...you are a murderer. I hope ya rot in prison =)

[Stormcrow]

Premeditation?

Am I to believe that when a criminal is killed it's because the victim set the robbery up?

You're proposal of settling bar tabs is a little over the top though.
I foresee less robberies, assaults, attempted rapes etc if this law goes through.

Evidence? Crime statistics in areas where people bear arms and have concealed weapons permits.

Yes, so you've said. And in reality, if you live in a rural area, where a great many of the gun owner DO live, anyone could be an "intruder". Who's there to argue the fact?

And really, once it's legal to kill a person for stealing, it's only a short step to outstanding debts...I mean, they are tantamount to stealing.

My point, again, is that you don't have the right to pass judgment on who lives or dies over something as unimportant as property.

[gigman]

Legal Advisor Nominee Advocates Global Gun Control
by Brian Darling
05/04/2009
story link

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.” Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”

Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.” Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.

Taken to their logical conclusion, Koh’s ideas could lead to a national database of all firearm owners, as well as the use of international law to force the U.S. to pass laws to find out who owns guns. All who care about freedom should read his speech. Senators need to think long and hard about whether Koh’s extreme views on international gun control are appropriate for America.

[Stormcrow]

Why do we care who knows that we own a gun? I don't get it.

[Stormcrow]

I don't think you guys are listening. It's not about protecting criminals.

If someone broke into my home, I have 2 small children, and yes I would do all in my power to protect them. I would kill the fucker without a second thought. BUT...he is clearly invading my personal space. He is in my home and I have no idea what his intentions are. He could be there looking for a dollar or he could plan to sacrifice my entire family. So YES....protect yourself and your family. They call this self defense. The criminal was trespassing.

But a purse snatcher is a completely different scenario. He clearly wants only your purse...that is why he is running away. Your life is not in any danger. So the point in shooting him now is what? The $100 bucks I have in my purse is worth more than your life? Because now you are worse than him. He was a petty thief...you are a murderer. I hope ya rot in prison =)

Don't waste your time kiddo. They will never value life as much as we do. Their possessions will always be more important to them.

[rrmommy]

But according to the "Castle Doctrine" (coming soon to a state near you), peoples lives are less important than possessions.

And these stupid fuckers call us liberal. The way I see it, we're more "Pro Life" than they could ever be. Their only concern is, apparently, their guns. So when we cry foul over somebody being killed with Willful Intent and getting away with it over a TV or what not they scream "Anti American Gun Hating Liberals!!!" When in fact, the issue was never about guns. It was about legalizing murder.

"A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day.""

I'm gonna have to disagree here. I like this law...I already thought this was a law? I thought it was considered self defense or justifiable homocide killing an intruder in your home. There is only 1 part that I disagree with "(or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work)". This would give people the right to murder car jackers and what not.

As a parent, if someone posed threat to my children, and there was not time to wait for police to arrive, I would do all in my power to protect them. Rather that meant a kick to the groin or a knife to the chest. There is no good reason for someone to break into our homes. And I am not willing to wait to see what their intentions are. NO my "posessions" are not worth their life...but my family is. And I will not sit around waiting to see what they plan to do. I'm sure the maternal instinct will kick into high gear and that fucker will wish I had a gun. :xd:

[Stormcrow]

"A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day.""

I'm gonna have to disagree here. I like this law...I already thought this was a law? I thought it was considered self defense or justifiable homocide killing an intruder in your home. There is only 1 part that I disagree with "(or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work)". This would give people the right to murder car jackers and what not.

As a parent, if someone posed threat to my children, and there was not time to wait for police to arrive, I would do all in my power to protect them. Rather that meant a kick to the groin or a knife to the chest. There is no good reason for someone to break into our homes. And I am not willing to wait to see what their intentions are. NO my "posessions" are not worth their life...but my family is. And I will not sit around waiting to see what they plan to do. I'm sure the maternal instinct will kick into high gear and that fucker will wish I had a gun. :xd:

Yes dear, but under the doctrine, you are justified in chasing a person after they leave your home with your possessions, and killing them. No different than the purse scenario you railed against.

[gigman]

Let’s get this up front: One does not walk deliberately up to an armored car guard, aim a handgun at his face and unintentionally put a bullet through his head; a bullet that strikes an innocent bystander.
But that is what 34-year-old Calvin Finley, one of four suspects in the brutal robbery/murder at the Lakewood Wal-Mart Tuesday, June 2 that left veteran guard Kurt Husted, 39, dead and customer Wilbert Pina wounded in the shoulder, is reportedly claiming in a court document that leaves one shuddering.
Armed citizens carry guns not to commit heinous acts like this, but to defend themselves, and their loved ones and other innocents in the event they happen to be caught in the middle of a vicious crime. There are thousands upon thousands of cases in which a legally-armed citizen has interceded or prevented a violent crime. The Wal-Mart robbery was not one of these, but it does demonstrate that violent crime can happen anywhere, at any time and also that bad things can happen to good people, no matter how many laws are on the books.
I discussed some of these cases in America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age, with co-author Alan Gottlieb. The Wal-Mart robbery/murder took place so fast, it is not likely an armed citizen would have been able to intervene.
Finley and three other suspects were rounded up within 24 hours of the heist, and the aftermath of this crime has garnered demands from talk radio hosts and listeners that if ever there were a case for the death penalty to be carried out in the event the accused are found guilty, this is it. One talk host even volunteered to perform the lethal injection, though some of his listeners were more inclined toward hanging.


Finley pulls out a handgun and within two seconds of pulling out the gun he points it at the guard’s face and fires. The guard, wearing a bullet-proof best, collapses after being shot in the face between his nose and upper lip. Finley then calmly turns and exits the store. - Pierce County court document


Finley should not have had the gun he allegedly used. With a criminal record in Washington and Wisconsin that included, according to the Tacoma News Tribune, more than 20 convictions that included several felonies, among them second-degree assault and residential burglary. He also violated a domestic violence protection order. Every one of those crimes is a disqualifier for ever owning or possessing any kind of firearm, and if this event demonstrates anything, it is the futility of passing such laws, and passing them off as some sort of panacea to crime.
But the “good news” if there is any: Finley now faces a charge of first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. What do you bet that this charge has him just quaking in his shoes?
The Seattle Times quoted an unidentified former girlfriend of Finley’s who tearfully said she knew one day he would kill somebody, but expected herself to be the victim.
Arrested and charged with Finley are Tonie Marie Williams-Irby, 42, the Wal-Mart employee who allegedly masterminded this crime with her boyfriend, Odies D. Walker, 41. Also charged is a fourth alleged accomplice, 20-year-old Marshawn Turpin. Photographs of the three men appearing on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s website show Walker with an angry expression, while Turpin and Finley appear rather indifferent.
Coverage of this crime in the News Tribune, Times and Post-Intelligencer is first-rate.
Finley and Turpin face aggravated first-degree murder charges, plus charges of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery and first-degree assault. Walker and Williams-Irby face first-degree murder and first-degree robbery charges.


I knew he would kill someone someday," she said, "but I thought it would be me."
- From the Seattle Times


If this bunch is guilty, the residents of Pierce County should sigh with relief that they are off the streets. The crime was so cold-blooded and alarming that it became a topic among armed citizens on the OpenCarry.org forum. This group promotes armed self-defense, and maintains a list of pro- and anti-gun businesses. Wal-Mart is on the pro-gun list.
According to a document filed by Mark E. Lindquist, chief criminal deputy for the Pierce County Prosecutor’s office, after gunning down Husted and making off with the loot, Walker and Williams-Irby “went on a shopping spree and ate out at the Red Lobster, where they spent approximately $175.” Alleged triggerman Finley went to a Fife motel and Turpin went to visit a girlfriend.
Williams-Irby attended company meetings where she learned the weekly and monthly income of the Lakewood Wal-Mart, the document said. She, Walker and Finley allegedly began planning the robbery and tried to recruit a man identified as Jesse Lewis to be the “triggerman,” but he declined. Lewis apparently told police that while he was with the trio, he saw three handguns, a .45 and two 9mm pistols, and also the Buick getaway car, which Walker told him not to touch (and leave fingerprints) because it was going to be used in the robbery.


I have seen the video tape of this murder, and there was no attempt to take that money peacefully. I did not see hesitation … this man was executed.” – Lakewood Police Lt. Heidi Hoffman


Walker was allegedly at the wheel of that car outside the Wal-Mart as Finley and Turpin went inside. Finley allegedly was slightly ahead of Turpin as they approached Husted. Finley pulled his gun, fired one round into the guard’s face. Husted, probably killed instantly, dropped to the floor and the papers allege that Turpin grabbed the money bags. Security camera images show two suspects leaving the store.
It will be up to the courts to decide what ultimately happens to the four suspects, but according to Lindquist’s Declaration for Determination of Probable Cause, this perhaps best represents what the authorities are dealing with:
“Finley told police that Irby-Williams and Walker received the larger cut because Irby-Walker worked at the Walmart. He was calm in the interview and admitted that he walked up to the guard and shot him in the face, but said the shooting wasn’t intentional.
“Finley has two prior felony convictions, Assault in the Second Degree and Residential Burglary.
“Turpin initially denied any involvement, even claiming it wasn’t him on the video. Eventually
Turpin admitted he was involved and it was him on the video. A detective asked if there was anything he would like to say to the family of the dead guard if he had the opportunity.
“He hung his head and said softly, ‘Sorry, I guess.’
“The detective said, “You guess you’re sorry? A man was shot dead for money.”
“I wouldn’t apologize. What would that do. He’s already gone.”
“If you would have gotten away with this,” the detective asked, “how would you have felt?”
“Bad, but, but I would have gotten over it because of the money.”

[gigman]

"A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day.""

I'm gonna have to disagree here. I like this law...I already thought this was a law? I thought it was considered self defense or justifiable homocide killing an intruder in your home. There is only 1 part that I disagree with "(or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work)". This would give people the right to murder car jackers and what not.

As a parent, if someone posed threat to my children, and there was not time to wait for police to arrive, I would do all in my power to protect them. Rather that meant a kick to the groin or a knife to the chest. There is no good reason for someone to break into our homes. And I am not willing to wait to see what their intentions are. NO my "posessions" are not worth their life...but my family is. And I will not sit around waiting to see what they plan to do. I'm sure the maternal instinct will kick into high gear and that fucker will wish I had a gun. :xd:

MEMPHIS, TN -- Reverend Robert Barnes pulled up to the front of his church for prayer service, just like he does every Wednesday. But Wednesday, June 3, 2009, was different. When he got out of his car, two people attacked him, demanded his wallet, and drove away with his car.

“They came and up and attacked me, boom like that,” said Rev. Barnes.

Barnes says the two teens kept yelling "We want your money!"

“I was taken by these two thugs, I would say. From that, a little scrap got on.”

He says one of the carjackers had something in his hand, but he's not sure if it was a gun. At 76 years-old, he fought as hard as he could.

“I'm knowing that if I get down, I'm doomed, so I got to stay up,” Rev. Barnes said.

He says one thought kept going through his mind.

“Just survival, survival that I got to fight for my life because I'm being jumped on by two people. Two young folk at that,” Rev. Barnes said.

Barnes thinks the two carjackers were waiting in a vacant building next to the church, sitting, watching for him to pull up.

“Me driving a Cadillac and dressed well, I'm supposed to have some money. That makes them lunge in on that,” Rev. Barnes said.

He says he's already forgiven his attackers. He also says he would love to talk to them, and that it only makes him more determined as a pastor.

“I know it's a rough area, it's a dope area, it's a dangerous area. You can travel it through faith and addressing the problem closer.”

Police have two people in custody for the carjacking, an 18 year-old woman and a 17 year-old man. Those two were involved in a chase, and ended up crashing the Cadillac, totaling it.

[rrmommy]

Yes dear, but under the doctrine, you are justified in chasing a person after they leave your home with your possessions, and killing them. No different than the purse scenario you railed against.

I guess the definition I found did not state that fact. Once the intruder is leaving...they no longer pose a threat. Any harm brought to them is no longer JUSTIFIED!!!

[rrmommy]

MEMPHIS, TN -- Reverend Robert Barnes pulled up to the front of his church for prayer service, just like he does every Wednesday. But Wednesday, June 3, 2009, was different. When he got out of his car, two people attacked him, demanded his wallet, and drove away with his car.

“They came and up and attacked me, boom like that,” said Rev. Barnes.

Barnes says the two teens kept yelling "We want your money!"

“I was taken by these two thugs, I would say. From that, a little scrap got on.”

He says one of the carjackers had something in his hand, but he's not sure if it was a gun. At 76 years-old, he fought as hard as he could.

“I'm knowing that if I get down, I'm doomed, so I got to stay up,” Rev. Barnes said.

He says one thought kept going through his mind.

“Just survival, survival that I got to fight for my life because I'm being jumped on by two people. Two young folk at that,” Rev. Barnes said.

Barnes thinks the two carjackers were waiting in a vacant building next to the church, sitting, watching for him to pull up.

“Me driving a Cadillac and dressed well, I'm supposed to have some money. That makes them lunge in on that,” Rev. Barnes said.

He says he's already forgiven his attackers. He also says he would love to talk to them, and that it only makes him more determined as a pastor.

“I know it's a rough area, it's a dope area, it's a dangerous area. You can travel it through faith and addressing the problem closer.”

Police have two people in custody for the carjacking, an 18 year-old woman and a 17 year-old man. Those two were involved in a chase, and ended up crashing the Cadillac, totaling it.

What's the point. YES carjacking is a crime and it's wrong. But the Reverend did not pull out a gun and kill them. He fought back against the attackers with his hands. And nobody was killed!!! No lives were lost over a car. Hmmm...he was a man of God and knew that Murder was wrong. Go figure!

[Entropy]

It would appear the value of a person's property vs. a criminal's life is the only issue here. I have a high value for all the things I've collected. Maybe that's because I had to earn each and every one of them. Nothing was handed to me and I certainly didn't steal them from someone who went through the trouble of earning them. Plus, I know that if my "stuff" is taken, I'm going ti have to go through the whole process of getting replacement "stuff" since I have no intention of going out and stealing it. To me, the person who thinks they can go out and steal from others and not earn a single thing in life is literally at a lesser value than a lot of the "things" in life. I suppose it goes back to my opinions on assholes that get by on the work of others.

If someone thinks its ok to steal my "things", I think its ok to steal their opportunity to do it again. If you disagree, it's possible you haven't been through hard times where a $100 item can take you a month of 40 hour work weeks to replace because you have minimal income and other priorities for your income. There's a lot more to being robbed and beaten than some physical pain and inconvenience.

Most liberals haven't been through, or understand, a life threatening or changing experience. Any of them that have aren't liberals anymore.

[4nik8]

Why do we care who knows that we own a gun? I don't get it.

Because it has everything listed to steal a persons identity.

Much the same as your driving information that isn't public information either.

[4nik8]

Yes, so you've said. And in reality, if you live in a rural area, where a great many of the gun owner DO live, anyone could be an "intruder". Who's there to argue the fact?

The guy who owns the house where the person, who had no business in that house was found. How's that for a start?

And really, once it's legal to kill a person for stealing, it's only a short step to outstanding debts...I mean, they are tantamount to stealing.

Are you seriously trying to put this forward?
I don't think even the most liberal of judges would equate debt with stealing...
My point, again, is that you don't have the right to pass judgment on who lives or dies over something as unimportant as property.
My point, again, is that I didn't make the choice.
The criminal weighed his own life before committing the act, found the odds acceptable, and came up short.



Don't commit the crime....no worries about dying for it.

Don't wanna die? Don't fucking steal from people. Get off your lazy fucking ass and do something to earn a living.

End of story.

[4nik8]

But a purse snatcher is a completely different scenario. He clearly wants only your purse...that is why he is running away. Your life is not in any danger. So the point in shooting him now is what?

Really? He now has all of your information. Should he think that Gucci purse is any indication of what you might own at own, he now has your address and the keys needed to get inside.

Shooting that scumbag solves a lot of problems. If not just for you, then the next victim he would have accosted now doesn't have that worry.

[Stormcrow]

Because it has everything listed to steal a persons identity.

Much the same as your driving information that isn't public information either.

But the govt has it, and that's OK. :wink:

[Stormcrow]

The guy who owns the house where the person, who had no business in that house was found. How's that for a start?


Exactly my point.

Here is a story that isn't too far fetched. Say I came home from work and found some muthafucka up in the bed with my wife...by the rights granted me my the Castle Doctrine, that dudes life is at my mercy. But what is he actually guilty of? Not turning down pussy? Yeah, that's worth dying for.

[4nik8]

Exactly my point.

Here is a story that isn't too far fetched. Say I came home from work and found some muthafucka up in the bed with my wife...by the rights granted me my the Castle Doctrine, that dudes life is at my mercy. But what is he actually guilty of? Not turning down pussy? Yeah, that's worth dying for.

So you say.

Since your wife gave him permission to be in the house, he's lawfully there and not considered to be under the guide lines any more...

EDIT.

Instead of killing him though, I'd thank him.

For what?

Showing me that my wife is a whore and needs to go.

Her sister is better looking and will do the things in bed that I like anyway

[Stormcrow]

It would appear the value of a person's property vs. a criminal's life is the only issue here. I have a high value for all the things I've collected. Maybe that's because I had to earn each and every one of them. Nothing was handed to me and I certainly didn't steal them from someone who went through the trouble of earning them. Plus, I know that if my "stuff" is taken, I'm going ti have to go through the whole process of getting replacement "stuff" since I have no intention of going out and stealing it. To me, the person who thinks they can go out and steal from others and not earn a single thing in life is literally at a lesser value than a lot of the "things" in life. I suppose it goes back to my opinions on assholes that get by on the work of others.

If someone thinks its ok to steal my "things", I think its ok to steal their opportunity to do it again. If you disagree, it's possible you haven't been through hard times where a $100 item can take you a month of 40 hour work weeks to replace because you have minimal income and other priorities for your income. There's a lot more to being robbed and beaten than some physical pain and inconvenience.

Most liberals haven't been through, or understand, a life threatening or changing experience. Any of them that have aren't liberals anymore.

You aren't stealing opportunity. You're stealing life. You may be OK with that, but I sure as fuck am not. And yeah, I've been through some times. $100 is STILL an amount of money that makes a difference to me, but I still wouldn't kill for it.

[Stormcrow]

So you say.

Since your wife gave him permission to be in the house, he's lawfully there and not considered to be under the guide lines any more...


Newp. MY house, not hers, and he's threatening the sanctity of my family. Justifiable Homicide.

[Entropy]

Exactly my point.

Here is a story that isn't too far fetched. Say I came home from work and found some muthafucka up in the bed with my wife...by the rights granted me my the Castle Doctrine, that dudes life is at my mercy. But what is he actually guilty of? Not turning down pussy? Yeah, that's worth dying for.

Are you sure about that?
Generally, if people are invited into the home by any of the residents (excluding a minor's judgment), they aren't considered at your mercy unless they commit a crime within the household after being invited in.

She either invited him in or he's raping her. Unless she's got him at gunpoint and holding him captive for sexual purposes, in which case, you probably have no business there anymore.:xd:

[Stormcrow]

Are you sure about that?
Generally, if people are invited into the home by any of the residents (excluding a minor's judgment), they aren't considered at your mercy unless they commit a crime within the household after being invited in.

She either invited him in or he's raping her. Unless she's got him at gunpoint and holding him captive for sexual purposes, in which case, you probably have no business there anymore.:xd:

Refer to my last post.

[4nik8]

Newp. MY house, not hers, and he's threatening the sanctity of my family. Justifiable Homicide.

I hate to keep telling you this, but, you're wrong .....again.

A Fort Worth man who killed his wife's lover after finding them together has escaped murder charges from a grand jury.

Instead, the Tarrant County grand jury indicted Darrell Roberson's wife, Tracy Roberson, accusing her of causing the shooting by claiming she was being raped.

The 35-year-old wife is charged with manslaughter in the death of Devin LaSalle.

You see, she invited him in.

He was there legally.

She said it was rape. The husband killed him.
It was found to be her lover and that she lied.

She got charged with his death.





http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/6793467.html



A lover in the home is not sufficient reason, under the Castle Law, to kill a person.

[Entropy]

Newp. MY house, not hers, and he's threatening the sanctity of my family. Justifiable Homicide.

So...
You're married, but the house is yours? Wrong.
She's banging some other dude and your family is home? Wrong.
If you're saying your family is at risk by bringing another man into the home, I'd say you better watch out for the UPS guy and the plumber too.

Besides, any man knows "stuff" is more important than any vagina in existence.

How does this compare to robbery? The only thing she may have stolen is your virginity and you're not getting that back.:xd:

[Stormcrow]

I hate to keep telling you this, but, you're wrong .....again.



You see, she invited him in.

He was there legally.

She said it was rape. The husband killed him.
It was found to be her lover and that she lied.

She got charged with his death.





http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/6793467.html (http://www.crowsnestforums.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kwtx.com%2Fnew s%2Fheadlines%2F6793467.html)



A lover in the home is not sufficient reason, under the Castle Law, to kill a person.

Ohh, yeah. Didn't I mention that she being such a trustworthy person for all these years, I simply assumed that she was being raped? (I certainly didn't take the time to watch the scene for details.) I just HAD to protect her. Only when she started screaming at me did I realize what I had done.

[Stormcrow]

So...
You're married, but the house is yours? Wrong.
She's banging some other dude and your family is home? Wrong.
If you're saying your family is at risk by bringing another man into the home, I'd say you better watch out for the UPS guy and the plumber too.

Besides, any man knows "stuff" is more important than any vagina in existence.

How does this compare to robbery? The only thing she may have stolen is your virginity and you're not getting that back.:xd:

You're silly.

[Entropy]

Ohh, yeah. Didn't I mention that she being such a trustworthy person for all these years, I simply assumed that she was being raped? (I certainly didn't take the time to watch the scene for details.) I just HAD to protect her. Only when she started screaming at me did I realize what I had done.

I don't think anyone on the jury is going to believe his penis was a deadly weapon.

[Stormcrow]

I don't think anyone on the jury is going to believe his penis was a deadly weapon.

Rape isn't a violent crime any more?

[Entropy]

Rape isn't a violent crime any more?

She could shoot him, but the only damage done to you was to your ego.

[Stormcrow]

Just own up to it fellas. You want the right to kill people. Most people are blood thirsty, I get that. And I apologize if my stance that you should be held accountable for murder offends you.

I apologize to all of you self hating Liberals out there.

[Entropy]

Now who's being silly?

[Stormcrow]

She could shoot him, but the only damage done to you was to your ego.

Prove that I didn't believe I was defending her well being. (you do realize that by way of this example I have convinced you to make my argument for me.)

[Stormcrow]

Now who's being silly?

Every one of you "pro right to murder" fools who can't see past your right to bear arms long enough to see the truth behind your argument. You want the right to kill over property. You want the right to judge another persons right to live.

[Entropy]

As a bystander, you have a duty to act in a way to prevent the act from happening. Either getting involved to stop the action or calling the police.

It's not happening to you.

Apply your theory to the robbery. Now you have someone else shooting the robber instead of the victim.

The funniest part about this thread is for hundreds of years, this issue hasn't been solved. To think anyone in CNF is going to stumble upon any groundbreaking revelation is absurd.

[Stormcrow]

As a bystander, you have a duty to act in a way to prevent the act from happening. Either getting involved to stop the action or calling the police.

It's not happening to you.

Apply your theory to the robbery. Now you have someone else shooting the robber instead of the victim.

The funniest part about this thread is for hundreds of years, this issue hasn't been solved. To think anyone in CNF is going to stumble upon any groundbreaking revelation is absurd.

I was just using your own logic against you dude. Funny how you are now using MINE to rebut me. ;)

[Entropy]

Every one of you "pro right to murder" fools who can't see past your right to bear arms long enough to see the truth behind your argument. You want the right to kill over property. You want the right to judge another persons right to live.

Everything is a choice.
If you choose to rob me, there's a chance you're not going to rob anyone ever again. "If you can't stand the heat..." "Don't do the crime if you can't do..."

In what situation is someone justified to steal another person's anything?

[Entropy]

I was just using your own logic against you dude. Funny how you are now using MINE to rebut me. ;)

I've been doing this kind of thing for a while.:angel:

[Stormcrow]

Everything is a choice.
If you choose to rob me, there's a chance you're not going to rob anyone ever again. "If you can't stand the heat..." "Don't do the crime if you can't do..."

In what situation is someone justified to steal another person's anything?

See? You did it again. A thief is wrong. They are a criminal. But if you kill them, you are a MURDERER, which is far worse. If you can't see that, you have some wires crossed.

[Stormcrow]

I've been doing this kind of thing for a while.:angel:

Psst! It means that you AGREE with me. You just don't realize that you do I guess.

[Entropy]

See? You did it again. A thief is wrong. They are a criminal. But if you kill them, you are a MURDERER, which is far worse. If you can't see that, you have some wires crossed.

I really think you and the rest of the Liberals need to stop associating murder with the right to bear arms.

One has nothing to do with the other.

And let's face it, the amount of people killed by gunfire while running away from a robbery is minuscule in civilized society. It's just another case of Liberals making mountains out of molehills.



Your other comment will receive a pfffft and be disregarded.

[Stormcrow]

I really think you and the rest of the Liberals need to stop associating murder with the right to bear arms.

One has nothing to do with the other.

And let's face it, the amount of people killed by gunfire while running away from a robbery is minuscule in civilized society. It's just another case of Liberals making mountains out of molehills.



Your other comment will receive a pfffft and be disregarded.

Ummm....that is ALSO my argument. The discussion has NEVER been about the right to bear arms. Never.


And you are far more liberal than I. Believe that. Being blood thirsty & bigoted doesn't make you conservative. It makes you Republican. There IS a difference.

[Entropy]

So let me see if I have this right:

I have the right to bear arms and use them as I see fit, but I have to suffer any and all consequences of my actions.

But if I rob someone who is armed and get shot, I shouldn't have to deal with that because the victim can't be a judge and jury, but you, as a bystander, can be?

[4nik8]

And you are far more liberal than I. Believe that. Being blood thirsty & bigoted doesn't make you conservative. It makes you Republican. There IS a difference.

Hmm. I always thought the opposite of Liberal WAS Conservative.
But are you sure you want to label the Republicans as being blood thirsty.

Maybe a review of history is in order for you.
Google Dems and Repubs and see which, through history, have been responsible for more wars.
I bet you'll be crushed.
:bigsmile:

Anyway, let's go with what you say should happen; a criminal shouldn't be shot if he runs away.

Where does that leave us in the end?
High crime.
Criminals know that hit and run is now ok.
Economy takes a hit.
All the bills that should have been paid or extra money that could have gone into the economy are now gone. Most likely to a drug dealer. Statistics show that most thieves do so to support a drug habit.
So now, we have drug dealers with an influx of cash.
Higher rate of drugs on the streets, higher rate of income for drug dealers, more gang turf wars, more deaths as a result.

Let's go with my thinking.

You kill the thief.

Crime drops.
The more you kill the less there are and eventually thieves will realize it's just too damned dangerous to be robbing folks. For the dumb criminals, they die too.

Economy booms.
Not only because people keep their money but doctors, lawyers, pathologists, morticians, grave diggers right on down the line all benefit.

Till you run out of stupid thieves anyway.

[Stormcrow]

So let me see if I have this right:

I have the right to bear arms and use them as I see fit, but I have to suffer any and all consequences of my actions.

But if I rob someone who is armed and get shot, I shouldn't have to deal with that because the victim can't be a judge and jury, but you, as a bystander, can be?

Newp. You don't have it right.

There is a distinct difference between defending what is yours and murdering somebody for stealing. The difference? Intent to fucking kill.

[Stormcrow]

Hmm. I always thought the opposite of Liberal WAS Conservative.
But are you sure you want to label the Republicans as being blood thirsty.

Maybe a review of history is in order for you.
Google Dems and Repubs and see which, through history, have been responsible for more wars.
I bet you'll be crushed.
:bigsmile:

Doubt it. I hardly root for the Democrats either. But you just keep on labeling me, you might just get close one day.


Anyway, let's go with what you say should happen; a criminal shouldn't be shot if he runs away.

Where does that leave us in the end?
High crime.
Criminals know that hit and run is now ok.
Economy takes a hit.
All the bills that should have been paid or extra money that could have gone into the economy are now gone. Most likely to a drug dealer. Statistics show that most thieves do so to support a drug habit.
So now, we have drug dealers with an influx of cash.
Higher rate of drugs on the streets, higher rate of income for drug dealers, more gang turf wars, more deaths as a result.

Let's go with my thinking.

You kill the thief.

Crime drops.
The more you kill the less there are and eventually thieves will realize it's just too damned dangerous to be robbing folks. For the dumb criminals, they die too.

Economy booms.
Not only because people keep their money but doctors, lawyers, pathologists, morticians, grave diggers right on down the line all benefit.

Till you run out of stupid thieves anyway.

There you go. Murder justified.


I can only dry cuff this thing for so long before it starts to chafe man. The fact is, there is no logic or reasoning that you can Google that is going to convince me that cold blooded murder is right. Try explaining to me how you are the creator, or the Law even, and therefore have the right to choose death for a petty criminal.

By murdering a thief, you become the bad guy.

Murder is not the unintentional killing while trying to stop them. It's the part where you take that extra step to make damn sure that a petty criminal is no longer breathing. You'd better HOPE that the Jews (all of 'em) are wrong if you believe otherwise son, because they qualify you as evil.

[4nik8]

Doubt it. I hardly root for the Democrats either. But you just keep on labeling me, you might just get close one day.

Uhh, you're the one that said Repubs were the blood thirsty ones. I didn't say you WERE a dem. I said you'd be crushed at who the REAL blood thirsty sons a bitches are.



There you go. Murder justified.


I can only dry cuff this thing for so long before it starts to chafe man. The fact is, there is no logic or reasoning that you can Google that is going to convince me that cold blooded murder is right. Try explaining to me how you are the creator, or the Law even, and therefore have the right to choose death for a petty criminal.

By murdering a thief, you become the bad guy.

Murder is not the unintentional killing while trying to stop them. It's the part where you take that extra step to make damn sure that a petty criminal is no longer breathing. You'd better HOPE that the Jews (all of 'em) are wrong if you believe otherwise son, because they qualify you as evil.

It ain't murder if a the perp is killed while committing a crime.

Cold blooded murder would be shooting someone who hasn't done anything.

How do I know this? The LAW tells me so.

Oh...and who gave the jews the right to be the sole holders of the boo hoo card?

How about all the Palestinians the JEWS kill incessantly?

You know...for a victimized people, you'd think they'd be a bit less murderous.

Nice choice of a people to cite, junior.

[Stormcrow]

Uhh, you're the one that said Repubs were the blood thirsty ones. I didn't say you WERE a dem. I said you'd be crushed at who the REAL blood thirsty sons a bitches are. They are both war mongering fucktards...what's your point?



It ain't murder if a the perp is killed while committing a crime.

Cold blooded murder would be shooting someone who hasn't done anything.

How do I know this? The LAW tells me so.

Oh...and who gave the jews the right to be the sole holders of the boo hoo card?

How about all the Palestinians the JEWS kill incessantly?

You know...for a victimized people, you'd think they'd be a bit less murderous.

Nice choice of a people to cite, junior.

If you stop him, then kill him, it's murder. If you're at all human anyway.

By "Jews" I meant all practitioners of the Judaic faiths. ie Jews, Christian Jews, Muslim Jews. You know, the predominant religions on the planet Earth?

And you know damn well how I feel about their cultist behavior.

[4nik8]

They are both war mongering fucktards...what's your point?

JERUSALEM - A pamphlet distributed to Jewish settlers urges them to shoot Palestinians and gives detailed instructions on how to obtain guns and avoid capture, according to media reports yesterday.

The anonymous pamphlet, quoted by the Hebrew daily Yediot Ahronot and state radio, advises settlers to steal explosives from the army, masquerade as soldiers during attacks and leave behind misleading evidence.

It says the settlers in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip should respond to stoning attacks on their cars with gunfire and should try to "hit and cause much damage."

My point is you decided to use those poor, wronged people as an example.

Poor example.




If you stop him, then kill him, it's murder. If you're at all human anyway.



If he stops and drops...he probably won't get shot. That's a robbery on the street.

In my house? Dead mother fucker.

He knew coming in it would be my life or his.

If he didn't stop to think that far......Darwinism at it's finest.

[Stormcrow]

My point is you decided to use those poor, wronged people as an example.

Poor example.
No sunshine, read to comprehend. The point I was making was that If there IS a God, then you're going to Hell. Thou Shalt NOT Kill, Eye For An Eye (Not a head for an eye) and whatnot.





If he stops and drops...he probably won't get shot. That's a robbery on the street.

In my house? Dead mother fucker.

He knew coming in it would be my life or his.

If he didn't stop to think that far......Darwinism at it's finest.

You say Darwinism. I say you're overdue for some evolution yourself. We (most of us) HAVE evolved since the Neolithic era, and don't live by the law of the Jungle any more.

[4nik8]

No sunshine, read to comprehend. The point I was making was that If there IS a God, then you're going to Hell. Thou Shalt NOT Kill, Eye For An Eye (Not a head for an eye) and whatnot.

You go from using piss poor examples to quoting fiction to me?
You must be at wits end.
In that book, GOD is responsible for untolled deaths....no?

Hell, Satan is only responsible for a few and HE'S the fucking bad guy.






You say Darwinism. I say you're overdue for some evolution yourself. We (most of us) HAVE evolved since the Neolithic era, and don't live by the law of the Jungle any more.

WE have evolved. Now we live by the Law of the Land.

It states if you steal my shit I can kill you for it.

Some of you are still living in a fantasy land where, just because the criminal is fast, he deserves to be able to prey on innocent people without fear of retribution.

[Stormcrow]

You go from using piss poor examples to quoting fiction to me?
You must be at wits end.
In that book, GOD is responsible for untolled deaths....no?

Hell, Satan is only responsible for a few and HE'S the fucking bad guy.

Off topic much?








WE have evolved. Now we live by the Law of the Land.

It states if you steal my shit I can kill you for it.

Some of you are still living in a fantasy land where, just because the criminal is fast, he deserves to be able to prey on innocent people without fear of retribution.

OK zippy, you're right. All laws are great. Not one of them flawed. Property is worth far more than human life. Petty crimes deserve the death penalty. And you should, in good conscience, be able to murder anyone who inconveniences you, whether they would harm you or not.

Yeah, that's what you keep saying.

[4nik8]

Off topic much?


Retarded much? Were you not just threatening me with hell and quoting scripture?





OK zippy, you're right. All laws are great. Not one of them flawed.

Funny...I think if you read back...that was MY argument about some of the proposed bills you seemed to find no problems with.

[Stormcrow]

Retarded much? Were you not just threatening me with hell and quoting scripture? Uhh, Fuck off dickhead.







Funny...I think if you read back...that was MY argument about some of the proposed bills you seemed to find no problems with.Yeah, that's why I threw it back in your face for repeatedly saying "The Law says I can do it!"

How's that, Hypocrite?

[StoneTheCrow]

its pretty much overwith when the "zippys" and "dickheads" start flying lol

[4nik8]

Uhh, Fuck off dickhead.






Yeah, that's why I threw it back in your face for repeatedly saying "The Law says I can do it!"

How's that, Hypocrite?

You lose.

[Stormcrow]

You lose.

No, I'm still the only one who cares about life here. I win by moral default killer, no matter how rude you get trying to tell me that you have the right to kill whomever you like.

[Stormcrow]

its pretty much overwith when the "zippys" and "dickheads" start flying lol

He started it with his "Junior" and "Retard" shit. I was just keeping pace.

[StoneTheCrow]

I'm actually for shooting to wound.

[StoneTheCrow]

He started it with his "Junior" and "Retard" shit. I was just keeping pace.

yeah i meant to mention those too, one handed typing and cloudy mind , ya know?

[LEFT]

KEEEEEL HEEEEEEM!



I'm sorry. I was overcome with an urge to scream that.

ok,so

y'all go on now

[Stormcrow]

I'm actually for shooting to wound.

I'm for shooting (or whatever else you've got to do it) to stop them. If there is no reason to make them dead, why should we be ALLOWED to do so?

[rrmommy]

Uhh, you're the one that said Repubs were the blood thirsty ones. I didn't say you WERE a dem. I said you'd be crushed at who the REAL blood thirsty sons a bitches are.



It ain't murder if a the perp is killed while committing a crime.

Cold blooded murder would be shooting someone who hasn't done anything.

How do I know this? The LAW tells me so.

Oh...and who gave the jews the right to be the sole holders of the boo hoo card?

How about all the Palestinians the JEWS kill incessantly?

You know...for a victimized people, you'd think they'd be a bit less murderous.

Nice choice of a people to cite, junior.

Something else we can agree upon. The Jews stopped being the victims as soon as they started doing the victimizing. But that's a whole nother topic!

(And that wasn't me going against the family at all):kiss:

[rrmommy]

Sometimes...I just get wicked little thoughts............I'm hoping that when all these gun happy guys/gals pull out there little hand guns to stop the guy who stole their 10 bucks...he turns around with his machine gun and blasts their asses............At this point, he is clearly acting in self defense....and walks away happy & free...with your money. Hmmm...that possession doesn't seem so important anymore more...does it? Was it really worth a life? Maybe not when the cost was yours?

[Deems]

Sometimes...I just get wicked little thoughts............I'm hoping that when all these gun happy guys/gals pull out there little hand guns to stop the guy who stole their 10 bucks...he turns around with his machine gun and blasts their asses............At this point, he is clearly acting in self defense....and walks away happy & free...with your money. Hmmm...that possession doesn't seem so important anymore more...does it? Was it really worth a life? Maybe not when the cost was yours?

YOU TWISTED CUNT! There is no morals for you and your lil special silver spoon bullshit here? I have had enough!
I have been a victim! You bitch. I was assaulted while i was 4 months prego and had my 3 yr old smooshed between my tummy and the floor! That crack/coke head asshole kicked me for the fun of it ! FUCK YOU ! I dont give a shit that your STORM';s sister.. NO RESPECT!
YOU should not breed! There are NO words that I can think of to describe you !
Wanna talk about this some more? BRING IT!

[citers]

....*backs out of thread slowly....

[Tawni]

Sometimes...I just get wicked little thoughts............I'm hoping that when all these gun happy guys/gals pull out there little hand guns to stop the guy who stole their 10 bucks...he turns around with his machine gun and blasts their asses............At this point, he is clearly acting in self defense....and walks away happy & free...with your money. Hmmm...that possession doesn't seem so important anymore more...does it? Was it really worth a life? Maybe not when the cost was yours?

all I can say is...WOW.

[Entropy]

It would appear the value of a person's property vs. a criminal's life is the only issue here. I have a high value for all the things I've collected. Maybe that's because I had to earn each and every one of them. Nothing was handed to me and I certainly didn't steal them from someone who went through the trouble of earning them. Plus, I know that if my "stuff" is taken, I'm going ti have to go through the whole process of getting replacement "stuff" since I have no intention of going out and stealing it. To me, the person who thinks they can go out and steal from others and not earn a single thing in life is literally at a lesser value than a lot of the "things" in life. I suppose it goes back to my opinions on assholes that get by on the work of others.

If someone thinks its ok to steal my "things", I think its ok to steal their opportunity to do it again. If you disagree, it's possible you haven't been through hard times where a $100 item can take you a month of 40 hour work weeks to replace because you have minimal income and other priorities for your income. There's a lot more to being robbed and beaten than some physical pain and inconvenience.

Most liberals haven't been through, or understand, a life threatening or changing experience. Any of them that have aren't liberals anymore.

I'm sticking with the above quoted thoughts. They best serve as my summation.
I have no desire to remain in this thread with the petty horse shit that's about to erupt.

[Free]

So, uh. Should all criminals get the death sentence? Considering that "would" drop the crime rate. Or some? Or what?

What type of crime garners the death sentence?

Or is it only the person that the crime is being committed on that "gets to".. how should I put this.. impose the death sentence?

Say: Guy steals purse. Said purse owner doesn't have gun. Perpetrator gets caught at a later time by a law enforcement officer... death sentence, right? Crime rate down. All's well, no?

I'm am only asking this about clearly non-life-threatening situations. Which, I believe is what started this whole debate.

[gigman]

What's the point. YES carjacking is a crime and it's wrong. But the Reverend did not pull out a gun and kill them. He fought back against the attackers with his hands. And nobody was killed!!! No lives were lost over a car. Hmmm...he was a man of God and knew that Murder was wrong. Go figure!No point at all. I just thought it would go with what you were saying about what you would do if you got carjacked.

Geezzz, lighten up already.:neutral:

[gigman]

Why do we care who knows that we own a gun? I don't get it.

Ok guys, anything to do with guns let's put it here.

For or against?

New laws and legislation?

Pics of your favorite guns?

Post up people.

Just in case you missed the meaning of the thread, please read my thread opener.:neutral:

It's all about guns.

[gigman]

Let’s get this up front: One does not walk deliberately up to an armored car guard, aim a handgun at his face and unintentionally put a bullet through his head; a bullet that strikes an innocent bystander.
But that is what 34-year-old Calvin Finley, one of four suspects in the brutal robbery/murder at the Lakewood Wal-Mart Tuesday, June 2 that left veteran guard Kurt Husted, 39, dead and customer Wilbert Pina wounded in the shoulder, is reportedly claiming in a court document that leaves one shuddering.
Armed citizens carry guns not to commit heinous acts like this, but to defend themselves, and their loved ones and other innocents in the event they happen to be caught in the middle of a vicious crime. There are thousands upon thousands of cases in which a legally-armed citizen has interceded or prevented a violent crime. The Wal-Mart robbery was not one of these, but it does demonstrate that violent crime can happen anywhere, at any time and also that bad things can happen to good people, no matter how many laws are on the books.
I discussed some of these cases in America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age, with co-author Alan Gottlieb. The Wal-Mart robbery/murder took place so fast, it is not likely an armed citizen would have been able to intervene.
Finley and three other suspects were rounded up within 24 hours of the heist, and the aftermath of this crime has garnered demands from talk radio hosts and listeners that if ever there were a case for the death penalty to be carried out in the event the accused are found guilty, this is it. One talk host even volunteered to perform the lethal injection, though some of his listeners were more inclined toward hanging.


Finley pulls out a handgun and within two seconds of pulling out the gun he points it at the guard’s face and fires. The guard, wearing a bullet-proof best, collapses after being shot in the face between his nose and upper lip. Finley then calmly turns and exits the store. - Pierce County court document


Finley should not have had the gun he allegedly used. With a criminal record in Washington and Wisconsin that included, according to the Tacoma News Tribune, more than 20 convictions that included several felonies, among them second-degree assault and residential burglary. He also violated a domestic violence protection order. Every one of those crimes is a disqualifier for ever owning or possessing any kind of firearm, and if this event demonstrates anything, it is the futility of passing such laws, and passing them off as some sort of panacea to crime.
But the “good news” if there is any: Finley now faces a charge of first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. What do you bet that this charge has him just quaking in his shoes?
The Seattle Times quoted an unidentified former girlfriend of Finley’s who tearfully said she knew one day he would kill somebody, but expected herself to be the victim.
Arrested and charged with Finley are Tonie Marie Williams-Irby, 42, the Wal-Mart employee who allegedly masterminded this crime with her boyfriend, Odies D. Walker, 41. Also charged is a fourth alleged accomplice, 20-year-old Marshawn Turpin. Photographs of the three men appearing on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s website show Walker with an angry expression, while Turpin and Finley appear rather indifferent.
Coverage of this crime in the News Tribune, Times and Post-Intelligencer is first-rate.
Finley and Turpin face aggravated first-degree murder charges, plus charges of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery and first-degree assault. Walker and Williams-Irby face first-degree murder and first-degree robbery charges.


I knew he would kill someone someday," she said, "but I thought it would be me."
- From the Seattle Times


If this bunch is guilty, the residents of Pierce County should sigh with relief that they are off the streets. The crime was so cold-blooded and alarming that it became a topic among armed citizens on the OpenCarry.org forum. This group promotes armed self-defense, and maintains a list of pro- and anti-gun businesses. Wal-Mart is on the pro-gun list.
According to a document filed by Mark E. Lindquist, chief criminal deputy for the Pierce County Prosecutor’s office, after gunning down Husted and making off with the loot, Walker and Williams-Irby “went on a shopping spree and ate out at the Red Lobster, where they spent approximately $175.” Alleged triggerman Finley went to a Fife motel and Turpin went to visit a girlfriend.
Williams-Irby attended company meetings where she learned the weekly and monthly income of the Lakewood Wal-Mart, the document said. She, Walker and Finley allegedly began planning the robbery and tried to recruit a man identified as Jesse Lewis to be the “triggerman,” but he declined. Lewis apparently told police that while he was with the trio, he saw three handguns, a .45 and two 9mm pistols, and also the Buick getaway car, which Walker told him not to touch (and leave fingerprints) because it was going to be used in the robbery.


I have seen the video tape of this murder, and there was no attempt to take that money peacefully. I did not see hesitation … this man was executed.” – Lakewood Police Lt. Heidi Hoffman


Walker was allegedly at the wheel of that car outside the Wal-Mart as Finley and Turpin went inside. Finley allegedly was slightly ahead of Turpin as they approached Husted. Finley pulled his gun, fired one round into the guard’s face. Husted, probably killed instantly, dropped to the floor and the papers allege that Turpin grabbed the money bags. Security camera images show two suspects leaving the store.
It will be up to the courts to decide what ultimately happens to the four suspects, but according to Lindquist’s Declaration for Determination of Probable Cause, this perhaps best represents what the authorities are dealing with:
“Finley told police that Irby-Williams and Walker received the larger cut because Irby-Walker worked at the Walmart. He was calm in the interview and admitted that he walked up to the guard and shot him in the face, but said the shooting wasn’t intentional.
“Finley has two prior felony convictions, Assault in the Second Degree and Residential Burglary.
“Turpin initially denied any involvement, even claiming it wasn’t him on the video. Eventually
Turpin admitted he was involved and it was him on the video. A detective asked if there was anything he would like to say to the family of the dead guard if he had the opportunity.
“He hung his head and said softly, ‘Sorry, I guess.’
“The detective said, “You guess you’re sorry? A man was shot dead for money.”
“I wouldn’t apologize. What would that do. He’s already gone.”
“If you would have gotten away with this,” the detective asked, “how would you have felt?”
“Bad, but, but I would have gotten over it because of the money.”

I want to direct your attention to one particular paragraph
Finley should not have had the gun he allegedly used. With a criminal record in Washington and Wisconsin that included, according to the Tacoma News Tribune, more than 20 convictions that included several felonies, among them second-degree assault and residential burglary. He also violated a domestic violence protection order. Every one of those crimes is a disqualifier for ever owning or possessing any kind of firearm, and if this event demonstrates anything, it is the futility of passing such laws, and passing them off as some sort of panacea to crime.
If someone would have killed this scumbag bastard in one of his roberies, an innocent man wouldn't have lost his life.:neutral:

GOTCHA!:xd:

[rrmommy]

YOU TWISTED CUNT! There is no morals for you and your lil special silver spoon bullshit here? I have had enough!
I have been a victim! You bitch. I was assaulted while i was 4 months prego and had my 3 yr old smooshed between my tummy and the floor! That crack/coke head asshole kicked me for the fun of it ! FUCK YOU ! I dont give a shit that your STORM';s sister.. NO RESPECT!
YOU should not breed! There are NO words that I can think of to describe you !
Wanna talk about this some more? BRING IT!

Seriously...I apparently have much more class than you because the insults...completely unnecessary. People would get you point alot clearer if you cleaned your mouth before you spoke. Fact is...we were referencing to a purse snatcher...not an attacker...so get your facts 1st. A man that ran by and stole your purse...there was no assault in this case. No risk to anyone's life. Completely different.


But I hope getting all worked up made you feel better ;)

To all...point is the ones defending the guns thought that $10 was worth death...a life, any life, did not value for more than the contents of the purse or your TV in your home...I wonder if the value on your own life is greater. Is $10 worth dying for? The purse didn't seem so important when it was your life...did it?

[Stormcrow]

Just in case you missed the meaning of the thread, please read my thread opener.:neutral:

It's all about guns.

Your response had exactly ZERO to do with the statement you quoted.

[Stormcrow]

I want to direct your attention to one particular paragraph

If someone would have killed this scumbag bastard in one of his roberies, an innocent man wouldn't have lost his life.:neutral:

GOTCHA!:xd:

Newp. Still doesn't validate murder. Sorry. But maybe if the gun owner had taken a couple extra steps to secure his weapons, the crook wouldn't have been able to steal it. Just a thought.

[Stormcrow]

YOU TWISTED CUNT! There is no morals for you and your lil special silver spoon bullshit here? I have had enough!
I have been a victim! You bitch. I was assaulted while i was 4 months prego and had my 3 yr old smooshed between my tummy and the floor! That crack/coke head asshole kicked me for the fun of it ! FUCK YOU ! I dont give a shit that your STORM';s sister.. NO RESPECT!
YOU should not breed! There are NO words that I can think of to describe you !
Wanna talk about this some more? BRING IT!

Damn! Imma go ahead and suggest that you read the thread before you post. EVERYBODY in this thread has expressed that a situation such as yours warrants whatever you can muster to stop him. I'd have liked this story to have ended with "Then hubby ripped out his trachea and ass fucked him with it while he asphyxiated. THEN he put a few rounds in him to make damn SURE he was dead."

You have effectively attacked a member with absolutely no provocation.(Not to mention my niece and nephew...innocent babies.) Calm the fuck down.


This is the third member in two days that you have insulted for no reason. Do you need to talk to somebody? My PM box is always open.

[4nik8]

No, I'm still the only one who cares about life here. I win by moral default killer, no matter how rude you get trying to tell me that you have the right to kill whomever you like.

You keep being pro criminal by protecting thieves and I'll keep being pro life by advocating carrying a gun and saving my life, any innocent person I see being jacked up and my families life.

He started it with his "Junior" and "Retard" shit. I was just keeping pace.

Go back and look. You started the name calling with "son".

You lose .......again.

[Stormcrow]

You keep being pro criminal by protecting thieves and I'll keep being pro life by advocating carrying a gun and saving my life, any innocent person I see being jacked up and my families life.
Nossir. I am ANTI criminal. I am all for you protecting your life. I never said otherwise.


Go back and look. You started the name calling with "son".

You lose .......again.

Nossir, that's just you continuing to misunderstand a single point in a particular post. I was mock preaching you see..."son" was an affectation of a religious term. Some MEN are sooo insecure with their masculinity that the slightest possibility that someone might be trying to diminish them causes them to go on the offensive. Please tell me that isn't you? I'd lose one hell of a lot of respect for you were that the case.

[Entropy]

I almost fell for that trick.
I just about cried when you called me a Liberal.
Cooler heads always prevail.
Which is why I carry a weapon.:bigsmile:

[4nik8]

Nossir. I am ANTI criminal. I am all for you protecting your life. I never said otherwise.
Yes you have. You want the criminal o get away if he's fast enough. Even if he's carrying all your identity and house keys....thus presenting a danger to you and your family.


Nossir, that's just you continuing to misunderstand a single point in a particular post. I was mock preaching you see..."son" was an affectation of a religious term. Some MEN are sooo insecure with their masculinity that the slightest possibility that someone might be trying to diminish them causes them to go on the offensive. Please tell me that isn't you? I'd lose one hell of a lot of respect for you were that the case.

You're so full of shit.

[Stormcrow]

Yes you have. You want the criminal o get away if he's fast enough. Even if he's carrying all your identity and house keys....thus presenting a danger to you and your family.

No, I want the punishment to fit the crime. And I don't want innocent people to become murderers.




You're so full of shit.

God damn you're slow on the uptake. Don't start shit with me because you "don't get" something. Try reading all the words instead of waiting for your turn to post.

[4nik8]

No, I want the punishment to fit the crime. And I don't want innocent people to become murderers.

No. You want to rewrite law. Or make people believe like you do.
The punishment DOES fit the crime. Steal ~ die.
Don't steal ~ live.

Pretty simple.





God damn you're slow on the uptake. Don't start shit with me because you "don't get" something. Try reading all the words instead of waiting for your turn to post.

Fuck you.

I did read it. In context you are nothing more than condescending.
If it were in any way an "affectation of a religious term" , there would have been at least one word ( of a couple I can think of) in front of "son" so as to NOT come across as condescending.

Others were already thrown before then.

Do try and keep up with your own posts.

[CULPRITE_INC]

I like turtles.

[Stormcrow]

No. You want to rewrite law. Or make people believe like you do.
The punishment DOES fit the crime. Steal ~ die.
Don't steal ~ live.

Pretty simple.

No. It works like this.

Commit HEINOUS crime ~ Die

Steal ~ (in the most extreme countries) Get you fucking hand chopped off, but LIVE.






Fuck you.

I did read it. In context you are nothing more than condescending.
If it were in any way an "affectation of a religious term" , there would have been at least one word ( of a couple I can think of) in front of "son" so as to NOT come across as condescending.

Others were already thrown before then.

Do try and keep up with your own posts.

I am SO sorry that YOU of all people may have felt spoken down to. Be that as it may, my post was meant as I stated it was. I, unlike you, don't have an eternity to sit and make damn sure every nuance of my post is custom crafted to convey the perfect message, AND save your feelings.

And if you HAD read it, you sure as hell would not have responded in the way you did.

Now I have lost respect for you. I thought you could have a debate without having a tantrum. I guess I was wrong.

[4nik8]

I am SO sorry that YOU of all people may have felt spoken down to. Be that as it may, my post was meant as I stated it was. I, unlike you, don't have an eternity to sit and make damn sure every nuance of my post is custom crafted to convey the perfect message, AND save your feelings.

And if you HAD read it, you sure as hell would not have responded in the way you did.

Now I have lost respect for you. I thought you could have a debate without having a tantrum. I guess I was wrong.

Ain't you cute?

There's a lot of suppositions in there for such a simple guy.

I appreciate the compliment on how well crafted my posts seem to you.

One thing I don't understand though, since we're both posting, one after the other, how is it that I have "eternity" and you don't seem capable of saying what you mean?

I liked the bit about the tantrum though.

I guess ya need something to hold onto to feel as though you've scored a point somewhere in this debate.

[Stormcrow]

Ain't you cute?

There's a lot of suppositions in there for such a simple guy. Yeah, and I'M condescending.

I appreciate the compliment on how well crafted my posts seem to you.

One thing I don't understand though, since we're both posting, one after the other, how is it that I have "eternity" and you don't seem capable of saying what you mean?
Well, you must. If you feel it necessary to change the entire meaning of my post because I forgot to type "my", clearly you ARE the grammar king.


I liked the bit about the tantrum though. Fuck you was decent? Sounded like a tantrum to me.

I guess ya need something to hold onto to feel as though you've scored a point somewhere in this debate.

I need nothing. Because you see, I am right. But you go ahead. Keep telling me how you have a right to murder people, and throw a few more insults at me while your at it. That will REALLY show me what a criminal loving Liberal I am.

Good debate "friend"

[4nik8]

I need nothing. Because you see, I am right.

That's the funniest thing you've written to date.

:bigsmile:

Good debate "friend"

Oh, jeez. Don't tell me you wear your heart on your sleeve and can't handle a well deserved "Fuck You".

I thought you were better than that.

Should I apologize for hurting your feelings?

I will. And mean it too.

[Stormcrow]

That's the funniest thing you've written to date.

:bigsmile:
I'll defer to the other thread, where you seem to have finally gotten what I'm saying.



Oh, jeez. Don't tell me you wear your heart on your sleeve and can't handle a well deserved "Fuck You".

I thought you were better than that.

Should I apologize for hurting your feelings?

I will. And mean it too.

No need. I couldn't care less. I just don't want to flame, this was intended to be a debate.

But I'll apologize right back to ya. I am guilty of playing along. ;)

[4nik8]

I'll defer to the other thread, where you seem to have finally gotten what I'm saying.

Who forgot what your message was?

[Stormcrow]

Who forgot what your message was?

My message hasn't changed one bit. Murder will always be wrong.

[Entropy]

I like turtles.

You know what the sad thing is?
This comment is closer to the topic than anything else on this page.

[Stormcrow]

You know what the sad thing is?
This comment is closer to the topic than anything else on this page.

I don't know about closER, but I'll take As close...

[Entropy]

Hey, it's an "out" either way.

[Stormcrow]

Hey, it's an "out" either way.

I took it.


have you seen this dumb shit?

http://theultimatechristmaslist.typepad.com/A-Cowboy-039-s-Breakfast-with-the-Frying-Gun-Egg-Stencil-4.jpg

[Entropy]

Can't say I have until now.
If I liked eggs, I might buy it for a goof.


I've been checking these out...

http://image.sportsmansguide.com/dimage/83810i2_ts.JPG?cell=200,200&cvt=jpeg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EJ5QCGR5L._AA280_.jpg

Can't find any available though.

[Stormcrow]

A bit pricey, but no intruder is gonna get to your gun before you wake up with this one. I think it's sexy as hell. I'm an inveterate techie though.

http://www.old-fashioned-values.com/get_item_bwv_wall-safe-biometric.htm

[Entropy]

Somewhere down the line, I would like to have one of those.
The fingerprint recognition is about the safest thing you can get, but since I am without children, I don't have much need to drop that kind of loot on it.

For that kind of money, I can go find a decent Springfield.

[Stormcrow]

Somewhere down the line, I would like to have one of those.
The fingerprint recognition is about the safest thing you can get, but since I am without children, I don't have much need to drop that kind of loot on it.

For that kind of money, I can go find a decent Springfield.

Yeah but it's all "Whoosh! Here's your side arm Captain." :bigsmile:

[4nik8]

1094

If the intruder can get to it quicker than I can this way, I deserve what I get.

[Stormcrow]

1094

If the intruder can get to it quicker than I can this way, I deserve what I get.

True, but you don't get the baddass woosh effect. :squigglemouth:

[Entropy]

He could wear a pair of Nikes at all times.

Swoosh. Woosh. Whatever.

[Stormcrow]

He could wear a pair of Nikes at all times.

Swoosh. Woosh. Whatever.

:heeheehee:

[CULPRITE_INC]

well if nike were to start to sell guns, then the new pro gun slogan would be "just do it"...

[Entropy]

well if nike were to start to sell guns, then the new pro gun slogan would be "just do it"...

That right there is some funny shit.

[gigman]

A bit pricey, but no intruder is gonna get to your gun before you wake up with this one. I think it's sexy as hell. I'm an inveterate techie though.

http://www.old-fashioned-values.com/get_item_bwv_wall-safe-biometric.htmI like that idea. Just to damned expensive for me though.

That's more like it. Those were the things I was looking for in this thread.

[Deems]

Damn! Imma go ahead and suggest that you read the thread before you post. EVERYBODY in this thread has expressed that a situation such as yours warrants whatever you can muster to stop him. I'd have liked this story to have ended with "Then hubby ripped out his trachea and ass fucked him with it while he asphyxiated. THEN he put a few rounds in him to make damn SURE he was dead."

You have effectively attacked a member with absolutely no provocation.(Not to mention my niece and nephew...innocent babies.) Calm the fuck down.


This is the third member in two days that you have insulted for no reason. Do you need to talk to somebody? My PM box is always open.

I was drunk and dont remember that. thats the first thing.
Second thing, if she is woman enough to voice her point, then she should be woman enough to deal with it . I dont have my extended family jumping in to defend me .
Third,I have made my public apology. Your reference falls upon deaf ears.
Fourth, I didnt lie, I was a victim. Your family stated that it would be nice to see the bad guy win. I answered with a Fuck You, but I went too far with it.

if you want to go further with this dialoigue.. feel free my inbox is open.

[CULPRITE_INC]

That right there is some funny shit.

glad some one gets my humor:wink:

[rrmommy]

I was drunk and dont remember that. thats the first thing.
Second thing, if she is woman enough to voice her point, then she should be woman enough to deal with it . I dont have my extended family jumping in to defend me .
Third,I have made my public apology. Your reference falls upon deaf ears.
Fourth, I didnt lie, I was a victim. Your family stated that it would be nice to see the bad guy win. I answered with a Fuck You, but I went too far with it.

if you want to go further with this dialoigue.. feel free my inbox is open.

I never said it would be nice to see the bad guy win. If you had done some reading...you would have known that it was a scenario in response to others believing that it's okay to end a non-violent crime with murder. Your response to mine was vulgar and ignorant. When you came out with the drunk excuse. I believed it at 1st. But reading things that you have written since...they are still so condescending and rude...I see that this is just you and the drunk excuse is just bullshit.

[Entropy]

I never said it would be nice to see the bad guy win. If you had done some reading...you would have known that it was a scenario in response to others believing that it's okay to end a non-violent crime with murder. Your response to mine was vulgar and ignorant. When you came out with the drunk excuse. I believed it at 1st. But reading things that you have written since...they are still so condescending and rude...I see that this is just you and the drunk excuse is just bullshit.

That's awfully judgmental for a liberal.:bigsmile:

[rrmommy]

That's awfully judgmental for a liberal.:bigsmile:

I hope that was a joke. I mean come on...the "lady" called me a cunt and a bitch.....And right after the apology....now I'm "special"? Whatever that means.

[Entropy]

A liberal would offer her therapy at the cost of others and give her a big hug.

[rrmommy]

A liberal would offer her therapy at the cost of others and give her a big hug.

Never said I was a Liberal. I do think she could use some therapy...but after the "Twisted Cunt" comment, she can forget about the hug.:neutral:

[Stormcrow]

I was drunk and dont remember that. thats the first thing.
Second thing, if she is woman enough to voice her point, then she should be woman enough to deal with it . I dont have my extended family jumping in to defend me .
Third,I have made my public apology. Your reference falls upon deaf ears.
Fourth, I didnt lie, I was a victim. Your family stated that it would be nice to see the bad guy win. I answered with a Fuck You, but I went too far with it.

if you want to go further with this dialoigue.. feel free my inbox is open.

That's fine.

I wasn't sticking up for her, I was addressing you, about you.

Thank you for your apology, very good of you. You made it well after I made this post though, so there is no need to be snotty about it.

Nobody said that you lied, I believed you tale. And I repeat, my post had nothing to do with "My Family", save for the part about the little 'uns.

[gigman]

RA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to U.S. Supreme Court: This week, NRA filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with the decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.

[hottyhere]

We have different rulings here in OZ about gun laws my ex lost his gun licence in 1995 due to a domestic voilence order against him he always maintained he was gonna take our son out shooting but I could never see it happening as he didnt hve the licence to back it up...the kids were alwauys dissapointed by his promieses and non deliveries for years

[LEFT]

let's see now..skimming, skimming...reading reading...uh-huh...reading reading....yikes....reading reading...

ok,so

street rat crazy




nuff said

I aint a gun owner (some would tell you it's because of a felony conviction....believe what you will, ask if you wonder)

can we do a sword thread next?

I got me a slew of swords, knives, chucks and a way kewl mornig star...

(gotta hang sumpthin on the walls, right?)

[4nik8]

We have different rulings here in OZ about gun laws my ex lost his gun licence in 1995 due to a domestic voilence order against him he always maintained he was gonna take our son out shooting but I could never see it happening as he didnt hve the licence to back it up...the kids were alwauys dissapointed by his promieses and non deliveries for years

I thought there was a ban on guns in Australia.

Is it just certain parts of your country?

[hottyhere]

I thought there was a ban on guns in Australia.

Is it just certain parts of your country?

No you can have guns as long as you have gun licences if you have a record you cant get a gun licence. Thats how it works here. Also Nik added you lol

[para]

http://irc.lv/video?id=hyvIO9TA93uD

[mike7]

wow. quite a thread. I hope ya'll have kissed and made up. That being said, it was pretty interesting. Being a law student, it says so on my profile, at probably the most liberal law school in the country, I've had similar discussions (minus the dickhead and zippy comments). Although, I've been called a nazi before. lol

Pretty good arguments up there. I can say this though, you shoot somebody dead, you can bet there will be a trial. When it gets to the judge (if jury, all bets are off), what the law on the books is, may not be followed. Your fate will be in the hands of someone else.

[4nik8]

wow. quite a thread. I hope ya'll have kissed and made up. That being said, it was pretty interesting.

Real men don't kiss and make up.
We beat the shit out of each other and then go out for a beer.

Loser buys.













































Set 'em up, Storm.

:bigsmile:

[4nik8]

HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009.


In a nutshell, the Blair Holt bill would:

* Prohibit possession of any handguns or any semiautomatic firearms that can accept detachable ammunition-feeding devices (excluding antiques) by anyone who has not been issued a firearm license.

* Require all sales of those types of firearms to go through licensed dealers.

* Direct the Attorney General to establish and run a federal record-of-sale system.

* Require the possessors of firearms to secure them (by secure gun storage or safety devices) when they are kept in locales where children might be capable of gaining access to those firearms.

In order to be issued a firearm license under the provisions of the Blair Holt legislation, applicants would be required to submit the following information to the Attorney General:

1. a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant

2. the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant

3. any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known

4. a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted

5. with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm

6. a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age

7. a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding:

* the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age

* the safe handling of firearms

* the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use

* the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms

* any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate

8. an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant

9. the date on which the application was submitted

10. the signature of the applicant




Proponents of the Blair Holt bill maintain that it is not an attempt to ban or otherwise infringe on the constitutional right to own or carry guns; it would simply establish a system for registering and tracking the ownership of guns that are used illegally, similar to the system currently used for automobiles.



Opponents of the bill maintain that it "focuses on the instruments of crime rather than on the criminals who use the instruments," and that, rather than targeting the criminal element, it "would simply further burden law-abiding people."

[CULPRITE_INC]

You have to go to school to drive, and get a license to prove you know what you are doing, and according to you a car is a "deadly weapon" so what is wrong with having close to the same processes for getting a gun, an actual weapon?

[4nik8]

You have to go to school to drive, and get a license to prove you know what you are doing, and according to you a car is a "deadly weapon" so what is wrong with having close to the same processes for getting a gun, an actual weapon?

Let's see....

do they come IN YOUR HOUSE to inspect that you have your shit straight concerning your car?

That'd not only be a huge NO but completely against the 4th amendment.

That's just for starters.

See, the fine details, the one's you claimed to have a grasp on, are what get you when you do nothing more than read a post and hunt for something to be a smart ass about instead of what it means to your personal liberties.

[CULPRITE_INC]

Let's see....

do they come IN YOUR HOUSE to inspect that you have your shit straight concerning your car?

That'd not only be a huge NO but completely against the 4th amendment.

That's just for starters.

See, the fine details, the one's you claimed to have a grasp on, are what get you when you do nothing more than read a post and hunt for something to be a smart ass about instead of what it means to your personal liberties.

It not taking away your rights, you can still have the fucking guns, they can force you to have insurance on your car, but they cant force you to have a gun safe?

now as far as coming into your house, I doubt unless your a class arms dealer they you would need more then to send a receipt of your gun safe purchase or what not. witch is easy to fake , and nik, when I get money I will be buying guns, I dont think it will in any way take em off the streets but hell I just look at it the same as a drivers liscens

[4nik8]

It not taking away your rights, you can still have the fucking guns, they can force you to have insurance on your car, but they cant force you to have a gun safe?

now as far as coming into your house, I doubt unless your a class arms dealer they you would need more then to send a receipt of your gun safe purchase or what not. witch is easy to fake , and nik, when I get money I will be buying guns, I dont think it will in any way take em off the streets but hell I just look at it the same as a drivers liscens

GOD DAMN you're the dumbest mother fucker I've had to deal with.

The 4th amendment stupid ass. Remember me mentioning THAT right?
They have the right, as that law is written, to come INTO YOUR HOUSE to MAKE SURE you are abiding by the law.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[CULPRITE_INC]

GOD DAMN you're the dumbest mother fucker I've had to deal with.

The 4th amendment stupid ass. Remember me mentioning THAT right?
They have the right, as that law is written, to come INTO YOUR HOUSE to MAKE SURE you are abiding by the law.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Sorry I dont bush up on these kind of thing, I live my life not worry about some thing that's not going to happen any way, just thing there a some 250,000 registered guns, with a possible just as many houses, where the fuck is the government going to get that kinda money to send some one to every one of those house?

[4nik8]

Sorry I dont bush up on these kind of thing, I live my life not worry about some thing that's not going to happen any way, just thing there a some 250,000 registered guns, with a possible just as many houses, where the fuck is the government going to get that kinda money to send some one to every one of those house?

Dude.

Sending them to ONE is house is too many.

It's bullshit to have to trade one right so that I can still have another.

Don't you understand the implications?

I'm being completely serious and NON confrontational here.

[CULPRITE_INC]

I know, neither was I, but I could say I do, but I wouldnt be 100% truthful. lol

And i do understand that one hosue is to many, but i think each person should have to have some gun training, in order to get a gun, coming into my house so much no, but proper gun use and safty would pretty much get ride of the need for the gun safes if gun safty is taught in schools or some thing.

[4nik8]

I know, neither was I, but I could say I do, but I wouldnt be 100% truthful. lol

And i do understand that one hosue is to many, but i think each person should have to have some gun training, in order to get a gun, coming into my house so much no, but proper gun use and safty would pretty much get ride of the need for the gun safes if gun safty is taught in schools or some thing.

If they spent as much time and money on how to combat ILLEGAL gun owners as they do infringing on the rights of LAWFUL gun owners, there wouldn't be the gun problems we have today.

[CULPRITE_INC]

Aint that the fucking truth

[Stormcrow]

Real men don't kiss and make up.
We beat the shit out of each other and then go out for a beer.

Loser buys.

Set 'em up, Storm.

:bigsmile:


Sure thing. I'll put 'em on your tab. :wink:

[4nik8]

Sure thing. I'll put 'em on your tab. :wink:



Cheap bastard.

I gotta pay your way.....again?

[Stormcrow]

Cheap bastard.

I gotta pay your way.....again?

Confucius say, "He who pays for own drinks, get broke quick."

[gigman]

In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?" Speaking of the Mexican border situation, NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.