RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban

RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

JohnWarren -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 8:55:19 PM)
Add to this that the cops have gone to court repeatedly arguing their duty was to the state rather than individual citizens. It's settled law that they have NO duty to protect YOU. Sounds to me like the USSC is just putting a little balance in the equation.

MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 9:02:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator Yes it would have been much better to leave him under the impression that guns are toys and that you should play with them cause you really dont get hurt or killed cause you can shake it off and get up just like on the Roadrunner cartoons. The punishment may seem harsh but he knew the rules. There are many ways you could have taught him the right lesson. The method you chose seems scarily bizarre to me whether or not his dad was on board. I'm sure there are kids who would be properly impressed by your lesson, but I know that there are some who would be traumatized by it. quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator Meanwhile, I get called by a neigbor who told me that my stepson and several other boys were in the back yard playing with a gun and it "looked very real". Well I went over there and sure enough it was real! It was a fully loaded Glock 40 caliber which belonged to the police officer father of his friend. They picked it up off the kitchen table, took it outside and were playing with it as the officer / father slept, and the school teacher / mother yapped on the phone. Did you call 911 and report this? I know that the police admin in my town would freak out if they heard of such a thing, and the officer in question would lose his badge. quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator By my blowing away his favorite toys, he learned that all the kings horses and all the kings men can fix something thats been shot and thats why the rules about guns are to be obeyed. <snip> All four of us agreed on my strict weapons policies - and would rather have a live child with no blood on his hands than a coddled happy one who gets a " time out " for an accidental shooting. Fact is that there were many ways you could have made your point without resorting to the kind of unhinged behavior you exibited. You didn't show him maturity and respect for firearms, you showed him something about destruction and loss. It's not the same thing. You showed him that might equals right, and that his rights and property don't matter unless he's willing to defend them with force. Good on you.

MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 9:54:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Nonsense, Gigs. The threat of tyranny doesn't vanish with the passing of time, it only changes in it's presentation, and removing arms from the population remains a vital first step. Nonsense. Free speech is and will always be the first line of defense against tyranny. Guns only work to combat tyranny when enough people get killed by them to draw international attention and sanctions. The US govt has evolved in such a way that it would be damned difficult for it to become truly tyrannical. The current administration has really tested this, but the checks and balances are working as they were designed to do. I'm guessing that we'll see some limitations on executive power coming up. An informed populace is the best defense against tyranny. As long as the citizenry is willing to accept appeals to their worst instincts and believe that there are simple answers to life's difficult problems, we'll be susceptible to slick politicians who manipulate us to their advantage. We need to develop some healthy skepticism.

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 10:09:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs Guns only work to combat tyranny when enough people get killed by them to draw international attention and sanctions. No, Gigs. I'm not sure where you got such an idea, but I would suggest not bothering with those sources again. Guns combat tyranny when you start shooting at the tyrants. Second, by your logic, if guns are a means of "drawing international attention and sanctions," wouldn't that make them a form of free speech as well??? I think you should be very grateful for those in the world who are willing to load their guns to defend your right to speak, even if all that comes out is self-contradictory poppycock.

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 10:25:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator Yes it would have been much better to leave him under the impression that guns are toys and that you should play with them cause you really dont get hurt or killed cause you can shake it off and get up just like on the Roadrunner cartoons. The punishment may seem harsh but he knew the rules. There are many ways you could have taught him the right lesson. The method you chose seems scarily bizarre to me whether or not his dad was on board. I'm sure there are kids who would be properly impressed by your lesson, but I know that there are some who would be traumatized by it. quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator Meanwhile, I get called by a neigbor who told me that my stepson and several other boys were in the back yard playing with a gun and it "looked very real". Well I went over there and sure enough it was real! It was a fully loaded Glock 40 caliber which belonged to the police officer father of his friend. They picked it up off the kitchen table, took it outside and were playing with it as the officer / father slept, and the school teacher / mother yapped on the phone. Did you call 911 and report this? I know that the police admin in my town would freak out if they heard of such a thing, and the officer in question would lose his badge. quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator By my blowing away his favorite toys, he learned that all the kings horses and all the kings men can fix something thats been shot and thats why the rules about guns are to be obeyed. <snip> All four of us agreed on my strict weapons policies - and would rather have a live child with no blood on his hands than a coddled happy one who gets a " time out " for an accidental shooting. Fact is that there were many ways you could have made your point without resorting to the kind of unhinged behavior you exibited. You didn't show him maturity and respect for firearms, you showed him something about destruction and loss. It's not the same thing. You showed him that might equals right, and that his rights and property don't matter unless he's willing to defend them with force. Good on you. On Point 1 - GOOD he should be traumitized by it. He would have been a hell of a lot more traumatized if he killed someone or got shot himself. The idea was to show him that guns are dangerous and Kevin's rules about them must be followed without question or exception. On Point 2 - No I discussed it, heatedly with the father, and refused to allow him to go over to that home where proper weapons control and discipline was not being maintained. Calling 911 would do nothing except get you on the police shit list. There is something called "the thin blue line" and they watch out for their own... The "police admin" would do nothing... For christs sake, in a story I posted to another thread, right here in Houston a Sherrifs deputy ignored inmates pleas for medical help as a man bled to death out of his asshole. In fact, he ridiculed the situation taunting "What do you want me to do get a band aid for his ass?" That deputy was "punished" by being removed from the jail and put out on the steet - which is essentially a promotion. Cops are out to protect and serve other cops, not the public. Thats part of why I own guns, becaus I dont rely on the cops to protect me. Hell during hurricane Katrina many of the the cops who didnt abandon their posts were out looting themselves! On Point 3 - There was nothing "unhinged" about my behavior. The destruction of his toys was a deliberate demonstation of the awesome destructve power of a firearm, intended to reinforce the point that firearms are deadly devices not toys and you never point one at anybody or anything you do not want kiled or destroyed. I did indeed show him "destruction and loss", in this case plastic toys. Better he learn the destructive potential on inanimate plastic, than that he learn it by blowing one of his little friends heads off. As for his "rights and property" - a child has no property. Those toys were bought and paid for by me. Thats why parents can and do take away things.... Children are not "little people" they are not equals, they are young skulls full of mush who must be molded and educated by the parents, and some of those lessons are quite literally matters of life or death. I dont know where the "defend them with force" issue comes in - that was not an option. The shooting of the toys was to demonstrate, exactly WHY I forbid him from touching a gun unless in my presence. Yes, he cried like hell, too bad, he would have cried more had he killed one of his friends and had to go through life as the kid who shot his best friend. I didnt wantonly and sadistically break his prized posessions, I did so as a consequence of his violating a major rule with potentially deadly consequences. He could have avoided this punishment by complying with the rules. He complied thereafter, as we tested him on it, so the lesson got through loud and clear and may very well have saved his life or the life of another child.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 10:45:34 PM)
Aviator, I am going to have to disagree with you a bit. I understand what you're saying. I grew up with guns. My father and grandfather took me, my little brother, and my cousin out behind the house when I was 9 and taught us how to shoot. I got my first gun when I was 12. It was a single shot, 20 gauge winchester that belonged to my father. I still have that gun. I got a .22 Marlin when I was 13. My father let us go out on our own with guns all the time. I spent many a happy day when I was a kid shooting at cans and hunting squirrels and rabbits. But even with all that, I still did stupid things with guns. I remember driving around the backroads with a six pack of beer, shooting at road signs when I was 16. I remember putting a bottle of propane next to a small fire, than shooting at it from a few hundred yards away. I can remember seeing if we could skip bullets off of a pond. When I was 14, I accidentely shot a hole through my mother's antique china cabinet with a Walther PPK that belonged to my father. You can teach gun safety all you want. But young people do stupid shit. It's part of growing up. I realize that I grew up in a rural area, and that city kids didn't have the same opportunities as me. But I understand when UM's do stupid shit. I am surprised that I'm still alive after all the stunts I pulled.

jlf1961 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 10:48:40 PM)
Aviator, I grew up in a different extreme. By the time I was seven I could shoot a 30/30 and a 22 pistol. I shot my first deer at 8 years old, and my first rattlesnake at 9. You see, people, where I grew up we had sneaky little critters that liked to slither and hide in and amonst hay bales. Every morning before school I had the chore of putting hay out for the cattle and a couple of buckets of oats out for my horses. My father welded a hay hook onto the end of a 6 foot length of pipe so I could pull the hay down with out actually being right next to the bale, he of course did this the very day he found a diamond back under a bale he pulled down. There was a 22 revolver hanging by the door, every morning I grabbed it and went to the barn. Of course, dad would have me 'plinking' cans 4 or five times a week. Now, before anyone says I could have used the hook on the pole to kill the snake, let me point out that hay hooks turn back on themselves like a letter 'c' with a nice sharp point. There isnt a kid living around here that doesnt know how to shoot, and half the kids have lost pets to snakes as well. Now, since no family cattle operation can function without the entire family working together, what would you do, have the guns taken out of the hands of those kids and see how many survive snake bite, or make DAMN sure they knew how to use the things?

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 11:08:08 PM)
jlf, dont get me wrong I am absolutely not anti-gun. I too started hunting at age 8 and like slaveboy had a marlin 22 waiting for me under the christmas tree at an early age. I currently own over 100 guns.... I collect Ruger Mk77 rifles, Colt handguns, and 20th century US military arms. I own several legal Class 3 weapons. However, my dad was a US Navy Master Chief, and I was brought up to know that guns are for killing. I was brought up to maintain strict weapons discipline. The prohibition on my step son wasnt on handling guns, it was on handling guns when I am not personally present. I have let him shoot, and I taught him the basic safety rules - it is always loaded even when its not, watch your muzzle, beware of your backstop and beyond, etc... Im not worried about the guns in my home, its what goes on in other idiots homes that scares me. I cant raise their kids, but I could and did make sure mine knew - dont ever touch a gun if I am not present, if an adult is handling a gun look but dont touch, and if there is a gun present without an adult - leave immediately. The rules arent flexible. When it comes to matters of safety - whether its guns, gnawing on the Christmas lights, pulling the dogs ears, or anything else likely to cause immediate harm or death I do not run a democracy. I dont even run a dictatorship. My home is a theocracy and I am God, LOL Now slaveboy - I must confess some of the stuff you refer to - such as the shooting of the propane tanks. I STILL do that. LOL However, I dont do it in front of people who shouldnt see it. What happens in deer camp stays in deer camp and sometimes it is "do as I say, not as I do" LOL [:D]

MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 11:33:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado As the Supreme Court ruling made amply clear, there never was any such law of the land, and therefor the 'if' applies to negate the 'deep kimchi'. No, they changed the law yesterday by a narrow margin, and we don't yet know what effect it will have on legislation that is out there other than the DC gun ban. Their ruling may invalidate some laws other than the DC ban made prior to yesterday, but that will be fought out in many cases to come and those who were convicted under the laws of yesterday will still be incarcerated. The only clear result of this decision is that some folks in DC will be able to get handguns and a lot of state and local laws regarding gun restrictions will be up for scrutiny but not necessarily overturned. quote: quote: He was a retired career law enforcement officer. I'm thinking that he was a sheriff, but I may be wrong about that. He wasn't running for anything. So he was a non-elected sheriff who never ran for office? Please forgive me if that causes me to laugh at any of your claims to know the least little bit about law enforcement. That's a pretty weird spin on what I said. He was retired. I think that he had been a sheriff, I'm not sure. At the time that he gave the interview he was not running for any office. quote: As I was saying.... you work with LEOs who don't understand that the decision had nothing to do with either concealed carry, or going into a home where there might be weapons present? That is an old TV myth. All that will change tactically is from the assumption that every house you respond to has the potential to contain a weapon, to the assumption that every house you respond to has the potential to contain a weapon, but some of them are owned legally. I didn't tie this decision to concealed carry, I mentioned that concealed carry was a big concern for local LEO's I know. I've worked with law enforcement officers for 19 years. I know these LEO's as human beings and consider some of them to be friends. They always go into situations assuming that there may be weapons involved. Tactically nothing will change, they'll do the same job they've always done because they're dedicated and responsible officers, but since the concealed carry law was passed they feel that there's a greater chance that they'll be shot. I don't think that's unreasonable. They're concerned that this decision will further increase their likelihood of being shot. I don't think that's unreasonable, either. Whether you get shot by a legal or illegal gun, you're still shot. It's not like legal guns are less lethal. quote: Arguing against the Supreme Court ruling is defacto arguing for the good old days when equalizers (and votes, and free speech, and freedom of religion, et al.) were kept out of the hands of 'that kind'. That's a pretty ridiculous interpretation. The SCOTUS decision didn't resolve much of anything and it will be argued for many years to come. The only sure thing is that outright bans won't be legal, which is as it should be.

Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 11:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator you never point one at anybody or anything you do not want kiled or destroyed That's entirely true, of course, and extremely good advice for any skull full of mush. But in practice, it's not so easy. Most target pistols and plinkers fire a small caliber solid round. And most gunshot wounds do not kill (even though they destroy what they hit). With a .45 hollow-point, what might have been a clean-through flesh wound using smaller-caliber jacketed ammo is likely instead to leave the target bleeding to death. But even so, a human being is capable of sustaining phenomenal punishment while continuing in a determined course of action. And in most self-defense confrontations where a firearm is used, it must serve the need to immediately incapacitate the subject. That's easier said than done, hence the favored self-defense response of a double-tap with large caliber expanding rounds. I'd certainly tell a kid (or an idiot) exactly what you said. But with anybody else, I'd be inclined to mention that a .22 caliber pocket-rocket is worth approximately zip as a self-defense weapon. I'm not saying it's not good advice. But it ain't pop, you're dead either. Kirata

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 11:50:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs I didn't tie this decision to concealed carry, I mentioned that concealed carry was a big concern for local LEO's I know. I've worked with law enforcement officers for 19 years. I know these LEO's as human beings and consider some of them to be friends. They always go into situations assuming that there may be weapons involved. Tactically nothing will change, they'll do the same job they've always done because they're dedicated and responsible officers, but since the concealed carry law was passed they feel that there's a greater chance that they'll be shot. I don't think that's unreasonable. They're concerned that this decision will further increase their likelihood of being shot. I don't think that's unreasonable, either. Whether you get shot by a legal or illegal gun, you're still shot. It's not like legal guns are less lethal. Well then the LEOs you talk to are fucking idiots and they should turn in their badges, hop on the short bus, and see if they can get a job at a sheltered workshop somewhere.... The people who have legal weapons carried on CCW permits are by definition NOT CRIMINALS so there is no reason why they would be getting into any type of gunplay with the cops. I have never even been convicted of a traffic infraction, much less a violent felony so exactly why would I be more likely to shoot a cop? Frankly, I dont even argue with the cops during a traffic stop - Ill say yes sir, no sir, and if he wants to write the ticket anyway then Ill either call my friend Debbie to fix it or I will give it to my lawyer and he will make it go away. Cops are lowly civil servants and arent worth arguing with, much less shooting. So let me get this straight the idiot moron cops that you worked with for 19 years are afraid that suddenly the law abiding citizen with the good references, clean criminal records, clean mental health records, no restraining orders or domestic violence history, no substance abuse history, safety class etc is going to become confused and think that their CCW permit is a hunting license for cops??? These people who are otherwise pillars of the community, and found to be exempt from even the Brady Law waiting period, are going to suddenly go beserk on a cop killing rampage? Gimme a fucking break. If they are that scared, they can turn in their badges and let someone who actually has a pair do the job for them.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 11:51:05 PM)
quote: Now slaveboy - I must confess some of the stuff you refer to - such as the shooting of the propane tanks. I STILL do that. LOL However, I dont do it in front of people who shouldnt see it. What happens in deer camp stays in deer camp and sometimes it is "do as I say, not as I do" LOL [:D] LOL, I knew it. I date women all the time with young'uns. I'm pretty cool about it. I try to be their buddy before I pull the adult hum-bug crap. I just remember my own childhood, and try and treat them the same. I am not their dad, and I don't pretend to be. I am their mom's new best friend, so I try to be their friend without being an intruder. It's hard for me, because my parents never divorced. I don't know how to deal with UM's. I use my own upbringing as an example. Well my upbrining doesn't fit well with the latest PC, Dr. Spock mentality.

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/28/2008 12:14:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator you never point one at anybody or anything you do not want kiled or destroyed That's entirely true, of course, and extremely good advice for any skull full of mush. But in practice, it's not so easy. Most target pistols and plinkers fire a small caliber solid round. And most gunshot wounds do not kill (even though they destroy what they hit). With a .45 hollow-point, what might have been a clean-through flesh wound using smaller-caliber jacketed ammo is likely instead to leave the target bleeding to death. But even so, a human being is capable of sustaining phenomenal punishment while continuing in a determined course of action. And in most self-defense confrontations where a firearm is used, it must serve the need to immediately incapacitate the subject. That's easier said than done, hence the favored self-defense response is a double-tap with large caliber expanding rounds. I'd certainly tell a kid (or an idiot) exactly what you said. But with anybody else, I'd be inclined to mention that a .22 caliber pocket-rocket is worth approximately zip as a self-defense weapon. I'm not saying it's not good advice, just that there's a lot more to the story than that. Kirata Yes true, but for my purposes of gun safety with the kindergartener, even a a through and through 22 wound to the foot is "destroyed" enough. You are absolutely right in that most don't die from gunshot wounds, at least not immediately, but I dont want to have them at all... Even a 22 short can create a houseplant or parapalegic with a head or neck wound, etc... I agree with you. My personal self defense carry gun is a Sig 226 with loaded with +P Winchester Ranger SXT's (Don't ask, it helps to have friends! LOL) If I carry something other than the 9mm it is a Colt Detective Special 38 with +P Federal Hydra-Shocks. I don't get the people who carry 22's, 25's , or 380's for defense. I am a volunteer firefighter / paramedic and I actually saw a guy who died from a headwound with a .25 ACP once. Only problem is - he was shot in the head 4 hours earlier, and then succumbed once he had enough brain swelling and bleeing. LOL Not exactly a lot of knockdown power there... He wound up dead sure enough, but if I have to engage, I want them dead before they hit the ground... However, your point is VERY valid, and is a prime example of why people should get good advice before purchasing a defense weapon instead of buying whats "pretty" or "shiny" or "cute"... LOL

Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/28/2008 12:14:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I try to be their buddy before I pull the adult hum-bug crap. Bait and switch, eh? How do you suppose it feels when somebody they thought was a pal goes "parental" on them? K.

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/28/2008 12:39:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: Now slaveboy - I must confess some of the stuff you refer to - such as the shooting of the propane tanks. I STILL do that. LOL However, I dont do it in front of people who shouldnt see it. What happens in deer camp stays in deer camp and sometimes it is "do as I say, not as I do" LOL [:D] LOL, I knew it. I date women all the time with young'uns. I'm pretty cool about it. I try to be their buddy before I pull the adult hum-bug crap. I just remember my own childhood, and try and treat them the same. I am not their dad, and I don't pretend to be. I am their mom's new best friend, so I try to be their friend without being an intruder. It's hard for me, because my parents never divorced. I don't know how to deal with UM's. I use my own upbringing as an example. Well my upbrining doesn't fit well with the latest PC, Dr. Spock mentality. Shit slaveboy, you wouldnt believe some of the crap I get into. A buddy of mine has a spread out in the boonies and he bought some junker cars to put out there. We bomb them with pumpkins, watermelons, etc thrown from small planes! (This is actually legal, you can drop stuff from an airplane as long as you do so without "endangerng people on the ground") Seriously -we are talking airline pilots, NASA personell, even an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector who get their jollies tossing pumpkins, watermelons, large zuchinni etc from airplane.... [:D] Im actually a lot of fun, and the little ones love me. However, like you, my upbringing wouldnt please Dr Spock. (More like Dr. Mengele! LOL) Im also as my first wifes nephew said "cool as shit". I dont sweat the small stuff. I remember being called in for a playground fight and I asked "Who won?" When it turned out my stepson did I said "Then whats the problem? He won." The principal was stuttering she was so shocked. LOL He got suspended for two days, so I took two days off and took him fishing... I dont date a lot of women with UM's cause most of the women I date are 18 to 22 themselves. However, my fun and easy going nature is much appreciated and I pull practical jokes that would make most of the folks here hyperventialte. (Picture a man in a priest costume making out with someone in a catholic school uniform on a park bench. Or telling Southwest Airlines that my redneck girlfriend was "high functioning retarded"so they brought her little plastic wings and a coloring book... Or behaving like Borat, and hugging and kissing the Walmart people greeter while telling him how "all my life I dream to be in Glorious Walmart store in Grand United State of Texas America!!!!" [:D] A lot of people think Im a complete prick - but as some who have come to know me from here can attest I am an absolute pisser and funnier that a plugged up toilet at the Chrons convention.... [:D]

jlf1961 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/28/2008 2:31:29 AM)
Aviator, I was not meaning to sound as if you were antigun, I meant the question to go to those individuals in this forum who are antigun. As for me, I presently own a M1A, a riot shotgun, the 45 colt and the dragonov, for 'modern' weapons. I also own a breachloading blackpowder sharps .54, the original buffalo gun, as well as a replica 3 band enfield, 1858 new army, and a sharps black powder calavry carbine. The modern weapons are strictly for 'just in case' use. The 45 is always on the top of the bedside table, the M1A and riot gun are always near the door. I still live in the country, and while in central texas, I am just north of the hill country. Now for those anti gun folks, that means that I am in that wonderful area where we get mexican panthers, wolves and coyotes coming into the area. While the biggest problem is the coyotes, the others pose a risk to my neighbors who raise livestock. So, when my dogs begin to act strangely at night, you can bet I will be up and armed to see just what it is they are upset about. Besides, there is a small bounty paid on coyotes, and everyone can use a bit of extra cash with gas prices the way they are.

Alumbrado -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/28/2008 4:38:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado As the Supreme Court ruling made amply clear, there never was any such law of the land, and therefor the 'if' applies to negate the 'deep kimchi'. No, they changed the law yesterday by a narrow margin, and we don't yet know what effect it will have on legislation that is out there other than the DC gun ban. Their ruling may invalidate some laws other than the DC ban made prior to yesterday, but that will be fought out in many cases to come and those who were convicted under the laws of yesterday will still be incarcerated. The only clear result of this decision is that some folks in DC will be able to get handguns and a lot of state and local laws regarding gun restrictions will be up for scrutiny but not necessarily overturned. You said it was 'the law of the land',which is not an idle phrase...prior to this, the DC ordinance had no bearing on the rest of the country, so please tell us exactly which law of the land was overturned...if there wasn't one, then you were simply wrong to keep saying that there was. quote: That's a pretty weird spin on what I said. He was retired. I think that he had been a sheriff, I'm not sure. At the time that he gave the interview he was not running for any office. If he was a sheriff, retired or not, then he was a law enforcement executive, which is what I asked, for the reasons I explained. Executives say things that street level cops might not agree with.. Was he or wasn't he? quote: I didn't tie this decision to concealed carry, I mentioned that concealed carry was a big concern for local LEO's I know. I've worked with law enforcement officers for 19 years. I know these LEO's as human beings and consider some of them to be friends. They always go into situations assuming that there may be weapons involved. Tactically nothing will change, they'll do the same job they've always done because they're dedicated and responsible officers, but since the concealed carry law was passed they feel that there's a greater chance that they'll be shot. I don't think that's unreasonable. They're concerned that this decision will further increase their likelihood of being shot. I don't think that's unreasonable, either. Whether you get shot by a legal or illegal gun, you're still shot. It's not like legal guns are less lethal. And it's not like the millions of law abiding gun owners go out and shoot at cops everyday either. The Supreme Court ruling does not create new problems for law enforcement. quote: That's a pretty ridiculous interpretation. The SCOTUS decision didn't resolve much of anything and it will be argued for many years to come. The only sure thing is that outright bans won't be legal, which is as it should be. Those are the facts...gun bans are motivated by elitist and sometimes outright racist beliefs... And the Supreme Court ruling resolved the issue that there never was any requirement that the rights of 'the people' belonged properly to the state. Using that to deny any rights is unconstitutional.

meatcleaver -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/28/2008 4:45:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Add to this that the cops have gone to court repeatedly arguing their duty was to the state rather than individual citizens. It's settled law that they have NO duty to protect YOU. Wasn't that one of the criticisms the west made of the USSR?

SummerWind -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/28/2008 6:37:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen1968 I'm alone in my home tonight for the first time in seven and a half years and I'm sleeping with a loaded 38 next to my bed. And I have a dog. That's hot....

mistoferin -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/28/2008 6:41:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SummerWind quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen1968 I'm alone in my home tonight for the first time in seven and a half years and I'm sleeping with a loaded 38 next to my bed. And I have a dog. That's hot.... What exactly do you find hot about the fact that we live in a society where a woman alone feels so vulnerable that there is a need for a gun and a dog to get a decent night's sleep?

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02