Back to gun rights

[circmand]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563080,00.html?test=latestnews

Anyone else see this update on a story. Seems a bunch of soccer moms werre offended when a women lawfully and in full view wore a sidearm to a game. The hens all complained and the local sheriff abused his authority and took away the womans right to carry because she created a disturbance by following the law. Well she has now been murdered. I hope her family sues the ^&%$ out of teh town and the sheriff.

This also should make clear to all the people who say we do not need citizens to own guns the police are here to protect us. Well the police got this women killed. They are as responsible for this womans murder as the dirtbag who pulled the trigger. And to those that would say well if we didnt have guns the person could not have murdered her. I say I dount a murderer who ignores the law against murder would be that concerned about breaking the law about owning an illegal gun.

[ZEUS]

How in the wide world of sports do you figure the police are responsible for this woman's death? Did you even read the story you linked to?

[LittleBeast]

Yeah after reading the story it seems the lady was shot by her husband, with one of their own guns, that they owned legally. The only thing the police were responsible for was taking her gun from her and causing her public disgrace for not really concealing her gun at all.

[JAMAS]

How in the wide world of sports.....

On a side note.....that phrase is hillarious!

[tomdietrying]

circmand,
This is exactly how right wing and left wing do things. They will put a spin on something that makes no sense. The idea is to get the thought out there and maybe it will take hold.

Thanks to the members who are not followers.

Peace.
Tom

p.s.
I bet I know who you voted for. lol

[vt_maverick]

How in the wide world of sports do you figure the police are responsible for this woman's death? Did you even read the story you linked to?

Maybe circ thought she was unarmed because the sherriff took away her weapon, but clearly the article says:

"Wright said more than one weapon was recovered from the home."

Seems more likely to me that the husband caught her doing something less than virtuous with her online "friend" and gunned her down in the heat of the moment. (I think those details were updated since the link was first posted.)

[crager34]

circmand,
p.s.
I bet I know who you voted for. lol


Seriously? The responsibility lies with a vote, that really doesn't matter anyway due to how the electoral system works anyway? Would a Republican in the big chair have made that difference?

I don't know... maybe if.... IF... from a grass roots level we all decided to be responsible for ourselves instead us as a society, keep VOTING our rights away and asking big brother to take care of us....


maybe

if



Yeah. Probably not.

[psychos2]

You did not read the whole story, she got her permit back. So at the time of her death she had her permit. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. She was not carrying it concealed. And to a kids soccer game. She did not have to carry it the way she did , concealed yes ,not concealed No. shawn

[pbkid]

if your going to talk about something controversial, know your facts first.....

same problem you had in our camera/'cops' discussion

[tomdietrying]

craiger34,
You didn't get it did you?
Peace.
Tom

p.s.
I bet I know who you voted for too. lol

[circmand]

1 she had the gun legally in a holster withis easy reach
2 the cops abused their authority and pulled her permit because a few women could not deal with the site of a gun
3 a judge legally gave her back her gun and permit but verbally assaulted her for what was 100% legal\
4. she then felt the need to hid e her gun in her back pack instead of having it in her holster as is 100% legal
5. when her husband murdered her the gun was stuffed in her back pack and unavailable as opposed to on her hip in the holster.
6. apparently gun rights opponents can see imaginary cheating over a computer as a reason for the husband to murder his wife but can not see this woman had a need to have a gun immediately accesable to her.
7. tha fact that she was murdered and the police who abused their authority wrere no where around is proof she needed her weapon immediately available and the cops are useless

[pbkid]

hey circ, do you know the laws in Pa??

what may be legal in your state changes per state....

[Anita]

:flame:

[psychos2]

1 she had the gun legally in a holster withis easy reach
2 the cops abused their authority and pulled her permit because a few women could not deal with the site of a gun
3 a judge legally gave her back her gun and permit but verbally assaulted her for what was 100% legal\
4. she then felt the need to hid e her gun in her back pack instead of having it in her holster as is 100% legal
5. when her husband murdered her the gun was stuffed in her back pack and unavailable as opposed to on her hip in the holster.
6. apparently gun rights opponents can see imaginary cheating over a computer as a reason for the husband to murder his wife but can not see this woman had a need to have a gun immediately accesable to her.
7. tha fact that she was murdered and the police who abused their authority wrere no where around is proof she needed her weapon immediately available and the cops are useless

Her husband shot her while she was in her home on her computer. She was in her home. If you did not understand the first time. I doubt the judge told her not to wear the gun concealed in her home. From what I read her husband walked up behind her and shot her, in her home. I would guess the gun was not on her because she was in her home. This did not happen at the soccer game. She would not have had time to draw her gun and shoot her husband. I get from what you have been complaining about is that you hate cops? Cops are useless? There should be no cops? Is that what you are trying to say? Because thats what it sounds like to me. And you keep ssstttrrreeeccchhhiiinnnggg the truth to make cops look bad. This is a free country I have rights to do whatever I want ,is that what you think? You have the right to do what you want as long as you do not break any laws doing it. If you break the laws and get caught there are consequences. Most adults know this, and they also take responsibility for there actions. IT IN NO WAY WAS THE COP OR JUDGES FAULT SHE WAS KILLED GET OVER IT!!!!! AND IT IS NOT THE COPS FAULT WHEN YOU ARE SPEEDING AND GET A TICKET EITHER!!!! shawn

[vt_maverick]

I didn't know cops were omnipresent and/or psychic? Clearly having these superpowers and not using them to battle evil is reckless and they should be ashamed of themselves. In a country with a divorce rate of 50% they totally should have responded in time.

What an insane argument lol.

[crager34]

I obviously got something out of it, which was again: Personal responsibility. To carry a gun like that, in that situation was reckless. The murder that came later, whether related to the carrying of the gun, or her loss of being able to carry the gun is a stretch. To blame it on the "system"... in my opinion is an even bigger stretch.

I wanted Ron Paul, but voted for a candidate whom I thought would actually make some changes. Nader. Seriously? Did you think you knew that one? :grino:



craiger34,
You didn't get it did you?
Peace.
Tom

p.s.
I bet I know who you voted for too. lol

[handeeman]

I obviously got something out of it, which was again: Personal responsibility. To carry a gun like that, in that situation was reckless. The murder that came later, whether related to the carrying of the gun, or her loss of being able to carry the gun is a stretch. To blame it on the "system"... in my opinion is an even bigger stretch.

I wanted Ron Paul, but voted for a candidate whom I thought would actually make some changes. Nader. Seriously? Did you think you knew that one? :grino:

I wrote in H.Ross Perot....oh well.

[technocoy]

Wow, it's the "us vs them" again. When will the people on the left and right realize that most of us are in the middle and think you are all a bunch of extremist kooks?

I think that gun ownership is a limited basic right based on whether you are a friggin nutjob or not. Clearly, these people probably would have wound up better off had they NOT had guns in their possession/home. These were LEGAL gun owners too. The guy that shot up Virginia Tech? Legally purchased weapons.

There-in lies the problem. Figuring out who is a nutjob. That's a very hard thing to know. I support gun ownership with extensive background checks. If you are in such a hurry that you can't wait a week or two to get a gun other than a rifle or shotgun, well, something seems fishy about that to me. If you are legit, so what? you still get your gun, personal protection, etc.

I figure if you are blatantly showing your *** by blinging your piece at a soccer game with children running around you are probably a bit of a nut. Just my opinion of course. I have nuts in my family. They all think everyone is out to get them and they all carry guns at inappropriate times. They also all stockpiled tons of ammo and ****e for Y2K. That's cool in the end though because I would up with a bunch of free rounds over the years since then ;-)

I also think if you show up at a presidential speech with an assault rifle blatantly out in the open walking around with a bunch of people protesting health care you are probably a nut.

If you live in a very populated city it's probably going to incite some fear in people if you show up on the subway strapped. This can be solved by requiring concealed permits to carry in larger cities and requiring you to actually conceal it. It's called compromise. If you don't like compromise then maybe you need a cabin in the woods all alone. Being a part of the human race is about being with and around others and that requires compromise as long as we aren't all clones of a single mentality.

I think if you are a responsible gun owner you don't have the need to let everyone know you have one. You are secure in your ability to use it and protect yourself and therefore don't need to be a threatening unapproachable ***.

My .45 stays in my bedside table and my shotgun in the closet. the .45 also travels with me when going somewhere out of the ordinary. I suppose if I'm not comfortable in a situation I would probably pocket it. I don't have a concealed permit, but I don't usually wind up in places where I feel the need to have a handgun. I suppose someone could one day rob a store I'm in, but the chances of that are I have to imagine much smaller than being in a car accident. Besides the fact is that most stores and banks don't allow you to have a weapon concealed or otherwise.

If someone gets the jump on you in a shady joint/alleyway, you probably wouldn't have the reaction time to get to your gun anyway. You be better off training in a few weapon disarming moves through a martial arts instructor. They are fairly easy to do and more than likely would make your life a little less stressful since you must go through life always expecting someone to murder you.

I'm a pretty cynical guy. I'm pretty disturbed with the way things look sometimes. I'm a gun owner. I was raised hunting and fishing and camping and always checking my 6. I was also raised that not everyone is comfortable with the same things and I have rights as long as they don't incur on others rights. I think that a bunch of children and their mothers, no matter how obnoxious they are have the right to not have a handgun brandished in the open at their fracking soccer match. I DON'T however think they should be allowed to drive their giant suburbans whilst on the phone or doing makeup.

This is beside the point though since you obviously never read the article until called out about it and then tried to make it sound like the "fuzz" and all the evil, orgy loving, satan kissing,commie liberals somehow made this woman's own husband walk up behind her and shoot her. The funny thing about it is how you wanted it to be about some gun hating liberal making this awesome everyday gun toting woman into the devil and then murdering her in her own home, when really it was about only her and her also gun loving husband having their own problems with their legally and quite personal gun collection. Kinda back-fired.

I wish all the normal, middle of the road folks who use good ol' common sense and live in a world where things aren't always black and white could just let the pelosi's and reid's have a state or two and the palin's and the cheney's have one or two and the rest of us could just agree to meet in the middle and actually get some ****e done.

THESE topics are the tiny little thorns they like to stick in our sides to try and wedge us apart and distract us from the larger and more sinister picture. If people would, for a moment, put their religions, gun issues, abortion opinions to the side for just a moment things become just about hard-working people living in a country and an economy together who are all being fleeced. Take away the name calling and the ethnocentricity of it all and we're just people who need to learn to get along about the bigger issues of life.

Personal responsibility, manners, compassion, family values and respect for others is what is in danger of being lost here. As we all forget to walk a mile in another persons shoes it becomes easier to never see that person's plight and vice verse.

This culture of ME! ME! ME! quickly turns into a very lonely scenario. Kids who don't understand the importance of life and liberty never care when they take it or ruin it for someone else.

COMMON COURTESY.

Sorry for the long post, I think I took the flame bait.

[tomdietrying]

technocoy, very eliquant and thought out. I agree 100%.
Peace.
Tom

p.s.
craiger34,
Yeah, I guessed Ron Paul. lol

[pbkid]

technocoy.... very well put my friend.

no name calling, no aggression, just facts ;)

x2 to you sir

[VX KAT]

technocopy -you've just written the clearest, most sane and well articulated piece! I agree 1000% Kudos!

Now maybe we can all call a truce, just leave it and move on, seems like all sides have weighed in on these several hot topics.
:whiteflag:

[djvx]

Guns don't kill people.People kill people.Period. The Nut-Jobs can kill with anything, a vehicle, or a steak knife, hammer or whatever. Ted Bundy and many others killed many people with just their hands. The Guns are not the problem, they are more often the solution. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Try stopping a madman with a gun without one yourself.

[tomdietrying]

djvx, point understood, but what about this? Maybe madmen have to easy of a time accessing guns.
Peace.
Tom

[circmand]

djvx, point understood, but what about this? Maybe madmen have to easy of a time accessing guns.
Peace.
Tom


Would you be happier if they were throwing people out of windows?

[tomdietrying]

circmand,
Archie Bunker? Wasn't he that 70 sitcom dude that everyone made fun of his logic? Is that the Archie Bunker you're talking about?
Peace.
Tom

[circmand]

circmand,
Archie Buncker? Wasn't he that 70 sitcom dude that everyone made fun of his logic? Is that the Archie Buncker you're talking about?
Peace.
Tom

That Hollyood character invented by writers who at the same time made the intelligent character Mike Stivak an unemployed person living at his father in laws house and doing nothing but arguing and at the same time argued the point of communism being better than democracy.

I defy you to point out a flaw in his simple statement.

[Hiredgoon]

If you're looking for a head scratcher, you should check out Canada's gun control laws sometime. I recently got my possession and acquisition license for work, and learned some weird things.

I work as the technical director for a theatre company and I wanted to be able to rent antique firearms for use on stage, and the license to do so is the same as the license to buy actual guns, with a bit of a twist. In Canada, there are three types of firearm: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Non-restricted includes non-automatic rifles and shotguns, restricted includes automatic rifles and handguns, and prohibited pretty much covers the rest. What is really weird, is that replicas--as in anything that doesn't actually fire, which includes everything from real guns that have their firing pins removed and barrels plugged, to water guns painted to look real--fall into the prohibited category as "devices". So here, it's a stiffer penalty to be in possession of a plastic prop gun, than it is to be carrying a loaded shotgun in plain sight. Of course, both will likely get the police called; it's a very rare sight to see a gun in the open here--even hunters have to carry them in a case or have them somewhat concealed and stowed when not actually out in the field. By stiffer penalty, I'm talking about a federal record, fine and jail term which carries with it the inability to cross the border into the US ever again, as it puts you onto an FBI watchlist.

I'm not going to weigh in on either side of the argument--things are a little different here, and my opinions are for a different set of variables, but I thought y'all might be interested in how much more is involved in doing what you take for granted there.

[tomdietrying]

circmand,
I'm not sure that 70 sitcom is working for you. Maybe try to be a little more hip. Move up a decade and try an 80s sitcome like the Facts of Life. I hear Tootie is a master of peoples rights. lol
Peace.
Tom

[circmand]

circmand,
I'm not sure that 70 sitcom is working for you. Maybe try to be a little more hip. Move up a decade and try an 80s sitcome like the Facts of Life. I hear Tootie is a master of peoples rights. lol
Peace.
Tom

The works of William Shakespeare are dated as well and I should maybe use something from Wings?