Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 231
  1. #126
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycle64 View Post
    I could be wrong, but doubt many that say kill the bastages. Are out looking to pull a weapon at the drop of a hat. The thought of not being able to protect myself or others while the criminal has an illegal weapon is frightening.

    The story of Mr. Fish could be based on any topic, when you have both a political system and biased Judge!

    by Gerard Valentino
    The prosecution of Harold Fish reignited the debate over self-defense laws in America. For those not familiar with the story, Mr. Fish was convicted in Coconino County, Arizona of 2nd degree murder despite staying on site and rendering aid after being forced to shoot a violent attacker.
    Had Mr. Fish fled, the remote area where the shooting took place meant he was unlikely to be identified.
    Despite the opinion of the deputy that processed the crime scene and a mountain of evidence that proved Mr. Fish acted in self-defense, Coconino County authorities bowed to political pressure and pursued a baseless murder charge. When the judge excluded relevant evidence during the subsequent trial, it left the defense at a disadvantage and led to a guilty verdict.
    Thankfully, Mr. Fish won his appeal and is currently a free man. His story, however, shows how laws in America put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage when forced to use self defense.
    Buckeye Firearms Association attorney Ken Hanson constantly reminds citizens to wait for legal representation before talking to police after a self-defense shooting. Yet most honest citizens think that since they are innocent, it can't do any harm.
    Adding to the confusion, in most states self-defense is an affirmative defense, which means if the case goes to trial, the law-abiding citizen has to prove the act of self-preservation was legally justified. That means if the case makes it to court, the honest citizen sits at the defendant's table and the criminal that tried to commit a violent crime is considered the victim.
    The establishment media coverage of gun owners also works against law-abiding citizens who use deadly force.
    By painting gun owners as a semi-literate knuckle-dragging fringe group, the establishment media has furthered the myth that anyone carrying a gun for self-defense is a crazed vigilante. Since millions of Americans are now legally carrying guns, nothing can be further from the truth. But, because gun owners are portrayed that way in popular culture, it becomes an accepted stereotype.
    Oddly enough, the violent past of Mr. Fish's attacker was ruled by the judge to be inadmissible. But Mr. Fish's history as a gun owner was allowed into evidence during the trial, and the prosecutor used it to portray him as a blood-thirsty killer.
    So, according to the prosecutor and judge in this case, the mere act of exercising the right to bear arms is justification for questioning a citizen's mental state, motives and character.
    As an honest citizen, Mr. Fish did what he considered to be the right thing by calling the authorities and then putting his trust in the criminal justice system. Instead of finding salvation and legal protection, however, his decision cost him three years in prison, and likely will bankrupt his family.
    Everyone wants the victim of a violent attack to notify the authorities after a self-defense shooting, but the persecution of Harold Fish will surely make the next armed citizen think twice.
    Such an outcome is unacceptable, and every American needs to be outraged. Yet, because Mr. Fish used a gun in self-defense, his nightmare barely caused a ripple outside of Arizona; A sad commentary on how self-defense cases are viewed in America today.
    The truth is if someone like Harold Fish can end up in jail, anyone can. He was simply going about his normal day when a violent attacker forced him into a no-win situation. Then, an unjust prosecutor used Mr. Fish's choice to exercise the God-given right to bear arms against him.
    That should never happen in America.
    Gerard Valentino, a former military intelligence analyst, is a member of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors and the author of "The Valentino Chronicles Ė Observations of a Middle Class Conservative," available through the Buckeye Firearms Association store.
    for a post attempting to portray the subtleties of the situation, this fails miserably. Is there a single thing that asks, not whether Fish should carry or even shoot to protect himself, but whether he should kill? This is my point...lots of people carry, as is their rights, and we are all arguing over right to carry and right to defend instead of appropriate level of force. Or if the people carrying are just plain dumb. If Fish had wounded the guy, this would be a nonstory and everyone would be moving on with their lives. But NO ONE is willing to deal in the details that make reality. No one wants to humanize the situation, only yammer about rights and theory. Half the people in my office started carrying this past week. One of them has never been physical or athletic in his life, and is carrying now without a CCW and with 2 hours training ever in the use of firearms. Is this a good idea? Not whether its his right, but is it a good idea? Do you want to be in a small space with a guy with that little training?

  2. #127
    Shovel Ready
    Reputation: Cycle64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,768
    I agree not everyone is the right person to carry a weapon. But who is the judge of this, you! Not everyone should be behind the wheel of an automobile, but many that should not are! Do you feel it is your right to pick and choose who gets to have these rights in this country.

    What the above shows, is Mr. Fish made a call in which he was found free of liability. Only reason it achieved this attention was a prosecutor and judge trying to set an example and/or making a name for themselves.

    Mr.Ball, there is no easy fix for this issue. Maybe we should back up and find out if the prep was here legally or not? What was his criminal record! How many times had he been let free to commit more crimes? Address these issues before blaming someone for defending themselves.

    I believe the Constitution states we can defend our rights. Do you feel the Constitution needs to be rewritten?

    Merry Christmas everyone, off to a Christmas party.
    Currently at Mayo Clinic being tested for a kidney transplant. Donors welcome.

  3. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AKA Monkeybutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,318
    Quote Originally Posted by chollaball View Post
    Half the people in my office started carrying this past week.


    Shows you how completely irrational people are being.

    Remember people were making a run on banks when the government and irresponsible folks drove our economy off the cliff in 2008? Folks with 10K in the bank were panicking and making runs to withdraw everything even though the account was insured for 100K. This last week has that same panic/fear going on and some smart people that would normally have good sense are acting off emotions and running scared. You canít fault them, everyone acts different under stress but it usually does not turn out for the better from knee jerk reactions when dealing with panicked people.

  4. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Eazy_E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by chollaball View Post
    One of them has never been physical or athletic in his life, and is carrying now without a CCW and with 2 hours training ever in the use of firearms. Is this a good idea? Not whether its his right, but is it a good idea? Do you want to be in a small space with a guy with that little training?
    Personally, I wouldn't advise somebody who barely knows which end of the gun is the dangerous one to up and start carrying. I do feel that most reasonable people are responsible and mature enough to carry.

    The mindset is the stumbling block. All our lives, we, as decent members of society are taught, "don't point guns at people" "thou shalt not kill." Of course, when you have to lethally defend yourself, that flies in the face of all that. That's hard for a lot of people to overcome. A lot of otherwise good cops have died because they were reluctant to apply deadly force in a timely manner. The whole life being cheap and dear thing.

    If you see something that makes your neck hair stand up, put your hand on the gun, or even draw it and leave it at your side. But, if you're presented with the need to actually get a sight picture on somebody, shoot. Shoot right then. Shoot him until he falls. You don't carry a gun to deter. You don't carry to scare them off, or shoot them in the knee to warn them. You carry to take the life of another human before they take yours. That's heavy. That's the heaviest thing there is. If you can't accept that one day you might have to kill somebody's son, father, brother, friend, cousin, or nephew, you shouldn't carry.

    I'm proud that AZ is forward thinking enough to recognize it's citizen's right to defend themselves, but it's not for everybody.

  5. #130
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,389
    I think under extraordinary circumstances, many, maybe most people, act irrationally. It's human nature and to some extent, can't be helped. So if someone "blows away" another human being that was threatening or even just bothering him, it may have been a gross misuse of force, but in that situation it's difficult to not expect that kind of variability to the human response. I keep going back to that situation where the driver in the big truck killed the cyclist because he cut the cyclist off and the cyclist was beating on his truck. You're there in your big safe truck, with the doors locked. It's a dude with a 17lb bicycle, it's not going to hurt you and IT'S NO REASON TO KILL a human being. Stuff like that is going to happen though. How do we stop it? Yes, it frightens me. A few years ago on I-40 coming back from Flagstaff one day some guy pulled a gun out in the car next to me (on the highway). WTF is wrong with people?
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  6. #131
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycle64 View Post
    I agree not everyone is the right person to carry a weapon. But who is the judge of this, you! Not everyone should be behind the wheel of an automobile, but many that should not are! Do you feel it is your right to pick and choose who gets to have these rights in this country.

    What the above shows, is Mr. Fish made a call in which he was found free of liability. Only reason it achieved this attention was a prosecutor and judge trying to set an example and/or making a name for themselves.

    Mr.Ball, there is no easy fix for this issue. Maybe we should back up and find out if the prep was here legally or not? What was his criminal record! How many times had he been let free to commit more crimes? Address these issues before blaming someone for defending themselves.

    I believe the Constitution states we can defend our rights. Do you feel the Constitution needs to be rewritten?

    Merry Christmas everyone, off to a Christmas party.
    No, I do not for a minute think I am the judge. Have I once said he should not have been carrying or was wrong to defend himself? only that there is a very significant issue to examine when one guy is dead and he was unarmed. And I bemoan that people, like you Cycle64 in your above post, seem to focus only on rights and the Constitution. High falutin, abstract, with a giant reality gap. Step back from rights, rhetoric etc to just consider plain old stupid, plain old angry or scared or otherwise piss-poor judgment. Did a person need to get hit 3 times in the chest when the other person was unarmed? Answer that...did a guy need to die IF a non-lethal alternative was available. It could be you or me on the other end of that. Just as you accuse me of judging, should Fish have judged?

    Eazy E - I do agree with a lot of your comments about acting with purpose. But clearly, here, even after acquital and back-and-forth...its not clear a guy should have died and 2 lives been ruined. In the OPs case, sure, different story. But your single-mindedness of purpose troubles me when there is ambiguity which inevitably exists in many situations.

    As for the actual judge, he was absolutely right in discarding testimony on the victim\attacker's prior history BECAUSE the question was about what a reasonable person could know in that moment. The guy could have been nuts, but was he threatening then? Any other testimony is simply heresay. That is what judges are supposed to do. The attacker\victim's past can not be relevant, because it biases that characterization of the moment which must be seen from the hypothetical 3rd party's pov. To that fact, the shooter's mindset and history IS relevant because it absolutely bears on the moment. It may seem wrong, but it is absolutely correct for the Judge to have decided that. On this point that is a valid ruling for THIS situation. If a cop did this, there would be a storm of controversy.

    Gun advocates are all about the 2nd amendment and commons sense is ignored, gun control advocates are equally stupid in thinking the gun plain and simple is the problem and likewise common sense is ignored. You, MonkeyButt, Eazy in all your recent response are mostly thoughtful and I deeply appreciate that. We can have differences of perspective, but agree that this is a serious topic with serious consequences for all involved and THINK rather than react. That the NRA would react to the Newton shootings without even giving a nod to the fact that *maybe* assault weapons and extended mags are worth discussing is just disgusting. Not saying they need to concede ground, but fer crissakes to not even be willing to discuss modifications to the discussion...? The NRA exists to further a zero-sum solution, they are an organization with their own internal agenda to further their interests and survive, and we all know the situation is not so black and white. The law is 250 years old, a lot has changed. I am not saying take away the right to carry, only that the Constitution is living and breathing and influenced by day-to-day jurisprudence. Just as the NRA likes to make you think its a slippery slope from banning machine guns to taking away all arms, should the average person be allowed to own an RPG? No, of course not...common sense says not. But the flipside of the NRA's zero-sum approach to any gun legislation is that ALL people should be able to own RPGs because they have a right to bear arms against the tyrannical government. Does that sound nuts...do you need an RPG?

    Please, as you advocate your positions (and for the record I believe people should be allowed to carry, even if I personally am conflicted on it), think about the day-to-day consequences of your actions as they affect real people in the real world. I think most of us would end up in relatively close consensus if we all could do that and take the philosophers out of the discussion. The NRA are philosophers, not governors.
    Last edited by chollaball; 12-24-2012 at 08:44 PM.

  7. #132
    SamuraiBunnyGuy
    Reputation: longhairmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,390
    i know one of the NRA guys said something defensive along the line of "cars kill more people, do we ban them too?"
    well, you do need to take a few months of instruction to get a driver's license,, pass medical tests, written tests, driving tests, follow speed limits and a buttload of other safety (and courtesy) rules,, carry liability insurance, etc,,,
    so the NRA wants to compare the danger of cars to the danger of guns, yet god forbid the idea of gun buyers having to go thru such a lengthy licensing process,, including the hassle of background checks at gun shows?
    but i guess its okay for driving rules to be stricter because cars weren't specifically outlined in the constitution?

  8. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,788
    ^ Cars don't kill people, people kill people.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  9. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    378
    In the split seconds that this type of thing happens it is wishfull thinking that people who choose to be armed have received training , advanced training and hopefully more training therefore they respond and don't react to the situation. Having been in a similar situation (auto car jack in N. Long Beach,Ca) nothing triggers the adrenaline than having a gun pointed in your face. Police and Military have developed there habits when it comes to close quarter combat and a few days at the range hardly qualifies a person to make the instinctive correct decision . "Dead Men tell no tales " may be cool to see someone say in the movies or in a video game however that bravado does not embrace the persons reality who pulls that trigger still has to "cope" with their choice after they have killed. This thread reminds me why although I own some very nice weapons I choose not to carry and if the Griz or Mountain Lion attacks me on the trail.... my # was up + I'm to old slow and frikin clumsy to draw by the time the predator has attacked .

  10. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,788
    It's to bad you didn't have one of these in your backpack. You could have poped a cap in his ass!
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  11. #136
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation: big0mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,475
    Quote Originally Posted by chollaball View Post
    the guy who sells legally to a liscencsed medical marijuana patient, and who is also a liscensed care-provider. And then makes a few extra bucks selling a bag to someone for recreation? Still dead?

    kneejerk idiotic posturing like this is why no one can discuss common sense gun laws and everyone falls back to pointless theory 250 years frozen in stone. Enjoy your theory. I'm sure Harold Fish did.
    Sounds like you just described a perfectly legal transaction. Why would that person be dead?

    Plus, I think drugs should be legal. All of them. We need more overdoses to clean this filthy-ass gene pool.

    But, there's nothing kneejerk about it. There are FAR TOO MANY people walking this planet that do nothing for society other than to keep the police busy. Many obviously feel differently but I don't see a single reason to keep career criminals alive.

    And we have tens of thousands of "common sense" gun laws on the books. Not a single one of them does ANYTHING to deter someone from committing a crime if they are intent on doing it. This should be painfully evident to anyone who reads the paper or watches the news even occasionally.

    Is there anyone out there that is so stupid, and wants to admit it, that they think one more gun law would've kept 26 children and teachers alive in CT?

    And Harold Fish was obviously an idiot or he wouldn't have gotten in trouble.

    I almost forgot one of my top "dead" categories: Drunk Drivers.

  12. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Eazy_E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Javelina View Post
    Police and Military have developed there habits when it comes to close quarter combat and a few days at the range hardly qualifies a person to make the instinctive correct decision .
    Aaaahhh yes, the old police highly trained crack shot mercenaries with way more training than the average subject.

    It's not really true.

    NYPD shooting stats show hits & misses - NYPOST.com

    Over the past 10 years, city cops fired 4,702 bullets, accidentally pulled the trigger 323 times, and missed 78 percent of their intended targets, according to data The Post culled from a decade's worth of NYPD annual firearm-discharge reports.

  13. #138
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by big0mike View Post
    Why would anyone have to feign sorrow over taking a life when that life severely deserved to be taken? ESPECIALLY, if taking that life was the only way to save my own or someone else's.
    I'll suggest you research those who have been in this situation.

    It has nothing to do with sorrow, and everything to do with a major life changing event that you can't walk away from.

  14. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    ^ Cars don't kill people, people kill people.
    Ever see the movie Christine?

  15. #140
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycle64 View Post
    I could be wrong, but doubt many that say kill the bastages. Are out looking to pull a weapon at the drop of a hat. The thought of not being able to protect myself or others while the criminal has an illegal weapon is frightening.
    FYI: A single blow from a fist has killed.
    Therefore a weapon is not a requirement for a life-threatening situation.

    The problem is,
    Some people act all macho in the Internet, and forget that such words can be used against them in both civil and criminal court.

    Meet the threat with an equal level of violence is more than sufficient to describe ones potential actions.

    Pre-Passing judgement and rendering verdicts is the equivelent of providing evidence for premeditation, IMO.

  16. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Eazy_E View Post
    Aaaahhh yes, the old police highly trained crack shot mercenaries with way more training than the average subject.

    It's not really true.

    NYPD shooting stats show hits & misses - NYPOST.com
    Easy - Merry Christmas and a cantankerous New Year! This guy does not read that tabloid...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Robbed at gunpoint for my 2011 Trek X-Cal-img_8536.jpg  


  17. #142
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,530
    Was Gomez an illegal alien?

  18. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,414
    Quote Originally Posted by longhairmike View Post
    i know one of the NRA guys said something defensive along the line of "cars kill more people, do we ban them too?"
    well, you do need to take a few months of instruction to get a driver's license,, pass medical tests, written tests, driving tests, follow speed limits and a buttload of other safety (and courtesy) rules,, carry liability insurance, etc,,,
    so the NRA wants to compare the danger of cars to the danger of guns, yet god forbid the idea of gun buyers having to go thru such a lengthy licensing process,, including the hassle of background checks at gun shows?
    but i guess its okay for driving rules to be stricter because cars weren't specifically outlined in the constitution?
    The second amendment was written to protect us from the government so please tell how that is possible if the government regulates which individuals the second amendment applies to? Remember, driving is a priviledge, gun ownership is in the constitution, the ability to protect yourself from harm is a God given right.
    Killing it with close inspection.

  19. #144
    Just Joshin' ya!
    Reputation: PrincipalRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,837
    Quote Originally Posted by FireLikeIYA View Post
    The second amendment was written to protect us from the government so please tell how that is possible if the government regulates which individuals the second amendment applies to? Remember, driving is a priviledge, gun ownership is in the constitution, the ability to protect yourself from harm is a God given right.
    The government places limits on rights all the time. Protests can be regulated to time, place and manner. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, there are times when the government doesn't need a warrant. A person cannot own an armed tank or a nuclear bomb because the government can place reasonable limits on the right to bear arms. Given that our country has a history of placing limits on rights, it seems reasonable to expect that a mentally unstable person cannot gain access to guns or that all guns need to be registered and their owner needs to be background checked.
    What do we want? TIME TRAVEL! When do want it? THAT'S IRRELEVANT!

  20. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,414
    Quote Originally Posted by PrincipalRider View Post
    The government places limits on rights all the time. Protests can be regulated to time, place and manner. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, there are times when the government doesn't need a warrant. A person cannot own an armed tank or a nuclear bomb because the government can place reasonable limits on the right to bear arms. Given that our country has a history of placing limits on rights, it seems reasonable to expect that a mentally unstable person cannot gain access to guns or that all guns need to be registered and their owner needs to be background checked.
    No, it all sounds logical (just like a lot of things sound logical) but history does tell that your two limits on gun ownership have been the precursors for every modern society to ban gun ownership. I am not afraid of guns or loonies because the number of incidents are so low. I think before we start talking about going to those extreme measures the probability rate needs to be higher. Just because something is in the news today or even tomorrow doesnt mean it is happening down the street.
    Killing it with close inspection.

  21. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Eazy_E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by PrincipalRider View Post
    Given that our country has a history of placing limits on rights, it seems reasonable to expect that a mentally unstable person cannot gain access to guns or that all guns need to be registered and their owner needs to be background checked.
    Why don't they just make it illegal to kill people? I mean, going on the mentality that more laws works, just making killing people illegal will solve the problem, right? Making drunk driving illegal sure did wonders for stopping that. Prohibition sure lived up to it's intended purpose too.

    What's gun registration do? The people who you don't need to worry about will line up to comply, while the people you do need to worry about, they won't. Criminal types typically don't go to the local FFL and show ID to buy the Lorcin they want to use in a robbery. Background checks, same thing. Nobody goes to a dealer to buy the guns they want to use for a crime. Lanza stole his from his mother.

    England has some of the most wacko gun laws in the civilized world, yet they have rates of gun violence and stabbings that are very disproportionate. Why? Could it possibly be because criminal scumbags don't care what laws they break and if they want a gun, they'll get one, regardless of what some hosebag politician says?

  22. #147
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,389
    Well, the fact is that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. There are people that own dozens upon dozens of guns, sometimes hundreds, flooding the market so to speak, and making it easy for criminals and anyone else to buy them. How? They get sold at gun shows, pawn shops, sold on the street, stolen and they start to fall through the cracks due to how flooded the market is and how many transactions are taking place. I know personally of some gun transactions that shouldn't have taken place, but that's the system we've built. How many of us own 20+ bikes? There are plenty of gun-nuts out there that own 20+ guns though and maybe a small percentage of them get into the wrong hands, but it's because there are so many to start with, it ends up being significant. This is the problem, we are absolutely flooded with guns. Someone gets pissed off? Go grab a gun. Often times legally bought, but people are unpredictable and in exceptional situations, they may not act rationally. Our gun-culture has enabled the killings, due simply to how many there are. Putting more restrictions on the types of guns or something like that won't really do anything. Look at all the crazies right now that are lining up to buy AR15s? How many have been bought? I bet the numbers are staggering (overall numbers in households). You don't have THAT MANY guns and expect that human beings are not going to go for the irrational solution and kill people more often than not. That is the problem. That is the difference between us and other nations IMO. Many other civilized nations have guns, but they have the laws in place that prevent it from getting to the point like it is here. They actually set some pretty good examples of sound policy and laws (Canada, others), unfortunately it's not going to do much with the hundreds of millions of guns we have out there in houses. Now we are at this point. 99% of them should be melted down and made into bicycles.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  23. #148
    SamuraiBunnyGuy
    Reputation: longhairmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,390
    let me get this right.

    -dangerous assault weapons were not spelled out in the constitution, but they should automatically fall under the 2nd amendment.
    -dangerous cars were not around spelled out in the constitution, but they are okay to regulate?

    any rights only extend to the point where they begin to infringe on others' rights.
    when your neighbor is stockpiling high powered weapons and you have kids,, your right to not have to **** yourself worrying about it everyday is being infringed.

    and please dont pinch the god loaf as an endorsement...

  24. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Eazy_E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by longhairmike View Post
    let me get this right.

    -dangerous assault weapons were not spelled out in the constitution, but they should automatically fall under the 2nd amendment.
    -dangerous cars were not around spelled out in the constitution, but they are okay to regulate?

    any rights only extend to the point where they begin to infringe on others' rights.
    when your neighbor is stockpiling high powered weapons and you have kids,, your right to not have to **** yourself worrying about it everyday is being infringed.

    and please dont pinch the god loaf as an endorsement...
    If your neighbor owns guns and you are sh!tting yourself worrying about it, you're the one with a problem, not him. A gun is like any other mechanical object, it can't operate without human input. A bus can be used to take a bunch of nuns to choir practice, or it could be used to run into a school cafeteria. Is a bus inherently evil? If somebody ran a bus into a bunch of kids, would you denounce "assault vechicles" and say how no reasonable man needs more than 8,000lbs GVW? The bus didn't do anything, it's the human that's evil.

    I own guns, multiple guns. I even own some of those "assault weapons" with the "high capacity assault clips" That's the first thing I did once I was 18. You know why, because 'Merica!, that's why. My dad had guns around all my childhood. My grandfather bought a Winchester Model 12 at JC Penney for $80 when he was 12 years old. Pretty much all males on my dad's side own guns, and it's pretty heavy on my mom's side too. Nobody ever killed anybody. Now, ducks and pheasants, that's another story.

    Point I'm trying to make is, worrying about what guns your neighbor has just means you're the unstable one. The fear mongering about OK Corral, and people going off, and traffic dispute killings, that by and large doesn't happen. The day to day people like you and me, you don't need to worry about.

    One of my favorites. Weep. Weep hard.


  25. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AKA Monkeybutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,318
    Are we ready to stop this silly thread?

    Let's get to some biking. Post some photos of bike parts Santa brought you. If you want to post off topic, post some Ms. Clause pics Post a ride you did this week.

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •