0
   

weapon + gun permit = self protection

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2008 03:34 pm
revel wrote:


Hardly an unbiased scholar, he does not even provide the study for review to understand how the statics were arrived at. Proof of nothing.


Some people just don't get it, but don't worry...
I'm sure someone will save your ass if and when the times comes.
0 Replies
 
Avatar ADV
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 04:56 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Avatar ADC
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE POLICE ARREST LAW BREAKERS AND JUDGES TURN THEM LOOSE. You need to read up on the justice system.


One points out that in this case, the perp was released because he couldn't be given a hearing in the normal time limit. By definition, it represents a failure in the system. From the article, we can't know if it was a failure in the police department to prepare evidence for the hearing, in the prosecutor's office in scheduling and facilitating the hearing, or in the judicial system for just being too busy to hold the hearing. Your call, I guess.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 05:16 pm
revel,
You are aware arent you of the court rulings that say the police are NOT obligated to protect a private citizen, but are there solely to protect society as a whole?

If you arent, I will be happy to provide you with some of the cases for you to read.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:03 pm
After a gun would be used correctly in self-defense there will likely be other gun situations where the alleged perpetrator will have a lawyer attempt to prove that he or she, as the alleged perpetrator, was innocent of any crime, and was shot by mistake. So, after the drama of the gun being used, there will be a more involved, and expensive, effort in a court. It is possible, the ruling to allow citizens to be armed will most benefit all those that are part of the court system.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:05 pm
You people scare me, and I am damn near fearless...

Shocked
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:06 pm
idjits with guns in their pocket scare the **** outta me...

Sorry.

Rock
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:09 pm
revel wrote:
Ridiculous answer from a judge. So he advocates shootouts all across America does he instead of calling 911 where crime is high and the police overworked? Little old ladies are expected to arm and protect themselves against armed assailants?

Quote:
He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to "purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself."


He is in effect blaming her for being attacked because she didn't have a gun in her hand when she was pulled from her car and beat up with a gun.

Is this what you guys honestly want to see and happen? Ordinary people arming themselves with guns and using them for any perceived dangerous situation?

No. I want to see the government not try to deny citizens the basic human right of self-defense. In my own case, I'd try, if at all possible, to call the police, but, at the same time, government posesses no right at all to deny people the means to protect themselves.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:13 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Obviously having a gun means you start shooting at everything that moves.

Naturally, recognizing that people have a right to protect themselves equates to turning the country into a shooting gallery.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:13 pm
Defend yourself at home, but don't bring your silly gun out in public around me, Jack...

We might oughtta start a who should carry thred, I feel real strong on this, and mosta you A2K gunnuts would do well to inform the rest of us iffin ya gets one...

Rock
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:14 pm
revel wrote:
more guns = more deaths

Where is this training going to take place, who would be in charge and how would it be paid for? What about people who can't afford this training or training is unavailable in the area? What are the options in such a training manuel other than shooting to kill? Who would supervise the trainers to make sure they are not a bunch of nuts training up people to go around killing people indiscriminately? I mean if you and others are truly advocating people go out and get guns to defend themselves rather than to be victims depending on undependable police officers, you got to have something organized to take it's place or else you are going to have some people able to afford guns and able to afford training and others not.

Maybe people should be forbidden to exercise free speech until they take a government course.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:16 pm
Rockhead wrote:
Defend yourself at home, but don't bring your silly gun out in public around me, Jack...

We might oughtta start a who should carry thred, I feel real strong on this, and mosta you A2K gunnuts would do well to inform the rest of us iffin ya gets one...

Rock

So, anyone who believes in the right of self-defense is a "gun nut." Your respect for civil liberties is an inspiration to all.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:17 pm
Referring to other A2K members as Jack automatically eliminates you from the list of folks that should carry.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:19 pm
Ya think?
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:21 pm
Do a little research before you wet yerself...

Cool
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:26 pm
Can a municipality mandate that anyone that gets a permit to carry a firearm also has to become a "deputy" of the law? That would cut down on many people just wanting to have a gun for warmth and comfort of one's persona.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:31 pm
That is not the way it plays right now.

Be scared. take a course for $$ and walk around with a gun.

Many businesses (mine included) have a no guns sign now...

(kinda odd for a vintage parts store, no...)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:34 pm
Foofie wrote:
Can a municipality mandate that anyone that gets a permit to carry a firearm also has to become a "deputy" of the law? That would cut down on many people just wanting to have a gun for warmth and comfort of one's persona.

The government has no right to insert itself as the dispenser of fundamental human rights. It has the right to prevent abuses, but no more than that.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:37 pm
Brandon, you are ignoring me...
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:40 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Can a municipality mandate that anyone that gets a permit to carry a firearm also has to become a "deputy" of the law? That would cut down on many people just wanting to have a gun for warmth and comfort of one's persona.

The government has no right to insert itself as the dispenser of fundamental human rights. It has the right to prevent abuses, but no more than that.


I would think many municipalities will want to limit the number of guns on Main Street at any hour of the day. How that will be achieved, I do not know, but I believe that will be the goal of many citizens. Perhaps similar to the Old West, when a town was considered to have "arrived" to a certain degree of civility when guns had to be left at a Sheriff's office.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:27 am
Rockhead wrote:
That is not the way it plays right now.

Be scared. take a course for $$ and walk around with a gun.

Many businesses (mine included) have a no guns sign now...

(kinda odd for a vintage parts store, no...)


Hey, you don't want guns in your shop or home --- I'm all for that. Post signs and reasonably rely on enforcement of your wishes.

If you don't want guns in places over which you have no control, work with your local government to prevent it. If you lose because of a constitutional right the rest of have ...tough.

Your personal fear of guns should not govern the right of fellow citizens to own them.

This sounds cliche, I know, but do you think for a minute that criminals give a rat's ass whether or not you abhor guns?

Gun owners may, as FBI Director Muellens suggest, injure themselves more often than they do their assailants, but you and your shop doesn't figure in this calculus.

There are no statistics, at all, to suggest, that private (non-criminal) gun ownership leads to a greater rate of injury or death among non-family associates. So unless you want to keep your wife from packing heat, you don't have much of an argument.

As far as the family issue - yes, it's terrible when some miscreant kills his family members with a gun, but this is, statistically, a rare exception and should not prevent the rest of us from using a gun to protect our family.

In any case, it is not the role of the Government to control every aspect of our lives as if we were infants.

I fully appreciate that here I depart from my Liberal friends who believe that the Government knows best (as long as it knows what they know).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 11:49:03