Back to gun rights

[circmand]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...est=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

[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

[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.)

[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.

[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.