|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 14, 2008 0:14:53 GMT -5
So, if the word "vigilante" doesn't agree with you....what would you call a person who starts shooting at the "bad guys"? Normally that would be the "police". It might surprise you to know that the concept of self defense pre-dates organized, state sanctioned law enforcement. It might also surprise you that the police are not on every street corner ready to spring into action. You might check in with Matt Toste, if you could, to see how expecting the police to be there to shoot back at the bad guys worked out for him. How about, if we must put labels on, we use the term "law abiding citizen trying hard to live to see another day"? It's not that the word vigilante doesn't suit me... it does not apply to your argument. Look it up for pete's sake if you don't believe the previously published definitions. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jun 14, 2008 0:15:50 GMT -5
Subdjoe:
Maybe not 6 year olds, but maybe 8 year olds. And you know what? Nothing happened. The kids talked about the guns, maybe the teacher did too. My brothers and I all started shooting about when we could walk according to my dad. I recall one accidental discharge - one of my brothers chambered a round in a bolt action 410 in the living room - a pack of dogs that had been attacking pets in the neighborhood was coming towards the house - when he pushed the bolt handle down into battery the gun discharged. A part had worn down and no longer could hold the striker back. I had one Neglegent Discharge - break open 410, I was loading it for the same reason, a dog pack coming, I started to cock the hammer and my thumb slipped. Among us I would have to guess that we have expended several million rounds (yeah, millions my dad, and the 4 of us. Dad had about 75 years of shooting, brothers all have ove 50 years, I'm the youngest so I have only about 48 years, say we averaged 10k rounds a year, it adds up) and those are the only two incidents. No injuries, no crimes committed, no brandishing. On weekends or during the summer we could take teh 22s and walk a few miles to an old quarry and shoot. "
-_____________________________________________
I don't understand your terminology and I'm not mocking responsible parents who give their children firearms (yikes)
Luckily you weren't a statistic.....call me cautious or whatever you'd like, but if I knew a child had a gun at school, I would expect action. Times have changed subdjoe and you never know what is happening at your neighbors' home/s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jun 14, 2008 0:24:03 GMT -5
So, if the word "vigilante" doesn't agree with you....what would you call a person who starts shooting at the "bad guys"? Normally that would be the "police". It might surprise you to know that the concept of self defense pre-dates organized, state sanctioned law enforcement. It might also surprise you that the police are not on every street corner ready to spring into action. You might check in with Matt Toste, if you could, to see how expecting the police to be there to shoot back at the bad guys worked out for him. How about, if we must put labels on, we use the term "law abiding citizen trying hard to live to see another day"? It's not that the word vigilante doesn't suit me... it does not apply to your argument. Look it up for pete's sake if you don't believe the previously published definitions. Ok, I picked the wrong word, my mistake. What would happen to the guy, the "law abiding citizen trying hard to live to see another day", if he killed or hurt the pertetrator? How would the law judge this? |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 14, 2008 0:25:16 GMT -5
So, if the word "vigilante" doesn't agree with you....what would you call a person who starts shooting at the "bad guys"? Normally that would be the "police". How about 'a good citizen?" Or maybe "a responsable citizen?" You are saying that you would rather that a thug gets to commit his atrocity unhindered rather than have an ordinary honest citizen perform her civic duty and stop it. How many bodies do you want, Mink? GAWD, you sound just like the rest of them, you revel in having innocents killed with no chance to defend themselves. Check the history of city police, Mink. It wasn't until recently (in historic terms) that cops were armed with firearms, until that time they were expected to call for help from the armed citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 14, 2008 0:41:23 GMT -5
Mink wrote; "I don't understand your terminology and I'm not mocking responsible parents who give their children firearms "
What don't you understand? I will try to help you on that. Knowing what you are talking about is important.
Mink wrote: "(yikes)"
why the yikes? We had bicycles, access to power tools, other things. A firearm is just an inanimate object.
Mink wrote: "Luckily you weren't a statistic....."
Ah, but I AM! I'm one of hundreds of millions of people who has learned to use and enjoy firearms safely. This is the great hidden statsitc - the 99+% of people who use firearms safely and responibly. Not that very small percentage who use them for criminal activity, or the statistically insignificant portion who end up killed or injured by accident.
"call me cautious or whatever you'd like, but if I knew a child had a gun at school, I would expect action. Times have changed subdjoe and you never know what is happening at your neighbors' home/s."
You didn't know before, either, Mink. And what has changed is the feel good about yourself, nothing is absolute, your whims become your needs, bs pushed by the left. Once the ideas of self control, respect for others, self respect through accomplishment, and respect for tradition were dead an buried, there was nothing to restrain anyone.
Odd, isn't it? The left which is all for group rights totally ignores personal rights and freedom. Conservatives tend to support individual rights and say that there is no such thing as group rights (hint - the group is the State, and in general, states have powers)
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jun 14, 2008 9:53:09 GMT -5
Hypothetically speaking, if the majority of the population had an opportunity to carry a gun, what would the criteria be to obtain a license? Be of a certain age, financial status etc, what? Or, would citizens just have the right without regulation?
My son is one example that is close to home for me. He is still sitting in jail (since Dec) for nearly killing his roommate while under the influence of a meth induced psychotic episode. Believe you me, if he had a gun near by he may have finished him off. Yes I know, or he would've been on the receiving end. Should he have the right to carry?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 14, 2008 11:44:30 GMT -5
JMO, if you are legally able to purchase a firearm (see atf form 4473 www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm). If a person qualifies with truthful answers, I see no reason to not allow that person to carry. In the case of your son, I am going to assume a felony conviction, or at least a disqualifying violent misdemenor. Plus the drug use. So no, your son has forefitted some of his civil rights through his choice of actions (Drug use). Further, I would be leary of allowing him to own or drive a car, but that is just me. All the anti-civil rights laws are based on the a priori assumption that the gun owner will misuse the firearm. That is like making the assumption that everyone who drives is a chronic drunk driver. Read my sig line. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 14, 2008 12:41:50 GMT -5
i don't want to sound too harsh JMO, but what if your son's victim had the right to carry?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 14, 2008 12:43:13 GMT -5
mink says, "What would happen to the guy, the "law abiding citizen trying hard to live to see another day", if he killed or hurt the pertetrator? How would the law judge this? "
as the old saying goes.....better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 14, 2008 13:18:55 GMT -5
Ok, I picked the wrong word, my mistake. No worries... my goal is to argue based on fact and not on hyperbole. You can see that in action right now as the fellow who shot and killed two home invaders in Clearlake is being put through the wringer right now in the trial of the third accomplice to the crime, who was wounded in the affair. Or the fellow in Healdsburg recently who shot a home invader to death when the home invader was trying to take the woman of the house hostage... the law judged his actions justified. In short, judging the merits of the case is what the law is for and what the process does. My goal is that, should I have to act in the final extreme, I be the one who has to be judged. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 14, 2008 13:28:11 GMT -5
"privat pyle has a jelly donut!"
love the new avatar, BD.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jun 15, 2008 11:24:44 GMT -5
i don't want to sound too harsh JMO, but what if your son's victim had the right to carry? You're not being harsh, that scenario has played out in my head several times. They are both still alive since a gun wasn't involved, a point to ponder. |
|
