saintsfanbrian
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 11:42 am
Careful of where you put that finger spiderman. Don't they let you use glock or an H&K? I haven't had much experience with the Sig. Be careful, some one might think you are a gun nut and run you out of here.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 12:29 pm
We can carry certain models of Beretta, Browning, Colt, Glock, H&K, Ruger, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson, and Springfield. Plenty of variety for everyone.
0 Replies
 
saintsfanbrian
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 12:46 pm
I choose the Beretta any day. (But I am partial)
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 01:02 pm
On another thread on A2K, JoefromChicago stated that he would take great pleasure prying that .16 semi-auto from my "cold dead hands". The fact that he'd had to kill me first didn't seem to occur to, or at least phase him.
0 Replies
 
saintsfanbrian
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 01:14 pm
Well he was probably meaning that once you were dead. He wouldn't kill you because that would be wrong and then there would be a chance that you might get the drop on him.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 02:29 pm
saintsfanbrian wrote:
And just because Canada's #1 rule is No Guns at Home



err, that's not Canada's #1 rule. That was my high school's Gun Club's #1 rule.
0 Replies
 
saintsfanbrian
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 03:10 pm
Well ehBeth - It's a stupid rule if you ask me, but then again, it was a high school rule so I can kind of understand. They are trying to indoctrinate the young people to thinking that a legally owned and safely stored firearm at home is bad.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 04:32 pm
Tarantulas wrote:

Since there are some criminals who do obey guns laws, I should have said "Gun laws only apply to people who obey gun laws.


That still makes no sense. Gun laws would "apply" to those who disobey them as well.

By the nature of the legal system you can't "disobey" a law that doesn't apply to you.

But even if that somehow did make sense the ultimate point you first tried to make is still flawed.

The fact that those who do not follow the law are criminals (by the very nature of that word) does not in any way indict the notion of gun control.


Quote:
The avowed goals of some of the gun control groups is to take firearms out of the hands of private citizens. With that in mind, almost any new gun law looks to a gun owner like the next step on the road to confiscation. So a gun owner looks at a proposed new law with at least two things in mind:

1. Is the problem solved by this law an actual problem, or a made-up problem?
2. How will this law affect law-abiding gun owners?

It seems that in most cases, the answer to #1 is that it's a made-up problem, and the answer to #2 is that the law restricts certain freedoms. So gun owners urge their representatives to "vote agin it!"


And these people, through their opposition to gun control are the biggest impediment to the viability of any effort to starve the illicit market.

Quote:
Here's my duty weapon. A Sig Sauer P228 9mm. Engineered Reliability!


I think sigs are the best looking handguns around. But I think you guys who are posting these pictures get more mileage out of gun imagery than do I.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 05:26 pm
cjhsa wrote:
On another thread on A2K, JoefromChicago stated that he would take great pleasure prying that .16 semi-auto from my "cold dead hands". The fact that he'd had to kill me first didn't seem to occur to, or at least phase him.


Perhaps you had died of natural causes?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 05:30 pm
Well, that's gonna happen sooner or later anyway there d! Wink I don't think that's what he meant.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 05:42 pm
Well, heaven forfend a gun went to the dark, mouldering grave with you lovey! I am sure he was just saving the gun!

Lol!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Fri 7 May, 2004 09:45 pm
Joe wasn't saying he'd kill you cjhsa. He was joking about the predictable "pry it from my cold dead hands" rejoinder.
0 Replies
 
wambli
 
  1  
Sat 8 May, 2004 02:35 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

A handgun or rifle in the house or workplace continues to be valuable in providing for one's own defense however. Given the average response time, if somebody was breaking into my house to do violence to me or mine, I would not want to count on the police arriving in time.

dlowan wrote:
I would just like to ask all the anti-gun-control folk here if they have ever successfully defended themselves against an attack by another human being with their gun/s?

Yes, I have.

I'd strongly advise any citizen of Arizona to read ARS Title 13-417.
Overzealous prosecutors want to put everyone in jail.
My advice to law abiding gun owners, is to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit.
Learn your state's laws and obey them.
Concealed Carry website:
http://www.packing.org/
Believe cops are going to protect you?
I got beachfront property just west of Phoenix you might buy.

Police will Protect US- citizens don't need weapons!
We citizens don't need weapons!
The Police Will Protects us. It's their job!

No it isnt!
Every Court decision provides a precedent for the next Court to follow
Quote:

>Hull v. Oldham, 104 N.C. Alp. 29, 407 S.E.2d 611 (1991)

THE LEGAL DUTY OWED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS LESS THAN YOU THINK !

One of the most misunderstood laws in this state is the legal duty of a law enforcement officer to protect the general public from physical harm. No matter what you have been taught in the past; no matter what your personal belief is concerning a moral duty to your fellow citizens; and no matter what some one may tell you after a careful reading of this bulletin; your LEGAL duty to protect the public is as follows:

"The general rule followed in this state is that
ordinarily law enforcement agencies and officials
are not under a duty to protect individuals from criminal actions of others

unless there is a 'special relationship' between the injured person and the police
or a 'special duty' arising because the police have promised protection to a particular individual."
Hull, 407 S.E.2d at 615.

"Instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest lawbreakers for the protection of the general public." Lynch v. N.C. Department of Justice, 93 N.C. Alp. 57, 60; 376 S.E.2d 247, 249 (1989).<

from a LE source in NC
By now most Police Departments have been made aware of this ruling.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Sat 8 May, 2004 09:26 pm
I read ARS 13-417 Necessity defense several times and I'm not really sure how it means that prosecutors want to put everyone into jail. It sounds like it applies to someone being coerced with a gun to his head.

I have a CCW permit and carry concealed whenever I can. I think everyone should.
0 Replies
 
wambli
 
  1  
Sun 9 May, 2004 02:35 pm
disclaimer: I already tried to be brief.
Tarantulas wrote:
I read ARS 13-417 Necessity defense several times and I'm not really sure how it means that prosecutors want to put everyone into jail. It sounds like it applies to someone being coerced with a gun to his head.
I have a CCW permit and carry concealed whenever I can. I think everyone should.

Each state has different laws. I strongly urge everyone to obey the laws of each state, while in that state.
[size=7]Each of my different state's CCW permit has different regulations.
It is possible for a law abiding citizen (such as myself) with a CCW permit to be legally armed in most states. (37+, with varying specifics in law)[/size]
My own experience and attitude entered into my pervious post.
The revised statues do not say put everyone in jail.
My own personal experience left that clear and unmistakeable impression:
Living near fueding neighbors, both sides wanting to draw me onto their side, by various devices;
I had obtained permits; eg: a permit to install a septic system.
My neighbors were living illegally, and, the County Inspector, after inspecting my site plan (and smelling their' raw sewage from their' unscreened outhouse) dropped them off a brocure.
They believed "He done sicced the law on us!"
( typical? case of "Law abiding citizens voluntarily obeying the law and criminals intentionally breaking the law")
After the first (unsuccessful) attempt to kill me (in my own yard) I fled towards the nearest law Enforcement Officers/ Buckeye AZ Sheriff's substation

A felon (previously convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and therefore prohibited from owning a gun)
tried to kill me with a revolver he had obtained illegally.
His partner used a sawed off shotgun, also illegal.
The law did not protect me.
My own firearm did protect me.

Having had to defend myself against multiple assailants;
Then being charged with and tried for "participating in a fight":
The same prosecutor who called me as 'witness for the state' against my assailants, prosecuted me.

Thanks to MCSO Deputies,
who investigated the crime, documented the physical evidence, obtained statements from all parties, accurately recorded and preserved all evidence, etc.;
Then testified honestly in court;
I was found not guilty and exonerated.
The other guys were convicted of felony ADW, assault with intent to kill, and so on.
(The one with the previous ADW felony was NOT charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.)
PS: The trial Judge agreed that:
had I just killed all my assailants, self defense would have been an affirmative defense.
The "reasonable man rule" AT THAT TIME stated "A man, in a place where he has a legal right to be, may kill his assailant without retreating a single step"
I had tried several times to break off the conflict and reach the Sheriff's substation.
My mistake was to cease firing when they were rendered incapable of further threat to my person. (as one Deputy explained)
Leaving them alive, left them capable of seeking revenge.

I took a job out of state as soon as possible.

Tarantulas,
[size=7]Any MCSD (or other AZ /LE) officer should be able to verify my story, and know from this, whom I be. Please respect my confidentiality)
[/size]
(edit to correct/re-re-edit to shorten & to add:)
"God, Grant me the ability to post shorter comments from now on."
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Sun 9 May, 2004 06:06 pm
I received your private message, but apparently my PM privileges have been revoked. When I try to reply to it, here's what I see:

Quote:
Hamster 8565 reports - Private messages temporarily suspended.

My inbox and sentbox are not full, so I'm not sure why I'm seeing this. I'm not sure if anyone else is having trouble sending PMs, but mine have been turned off for over a day now.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Sun 9 May, 2004 06:23 pm
Just sent you a ppm Tarantulas. It seemed like the normal procedure from my ene.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Sun 9 May, 2004 06:52 pm
Hey hey, it worked! Thanks a lot!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Sun 9 May, 2004 08:43 pm
Good deal.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 9 May, 2004 09:10 pm
You know, I find this all so humorously odd and alien...this thread's title, and the subject under discussion, the whole gun thing.

I suspect, though it seems as if it shouldn't be so, that there might be some fair amount of uneasiness if I started a thread titled...

GLORIFYING DILDOS
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Glorifying Guns?
  3. » Page 14
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 01:27:24