Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG? - Page 41 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-04-2013, 01:23 PM   #801
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 6,002
Total Cats: 174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samnavy View Post
Assuming the Governor doesn't veto or cause some other legal bullshit to stop it, this thing is done.
I guess I called it...

BREAKING: IL AG Madigan Files for a 30-Day Stay on CCW | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 08:08 AM   #802
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,286
Total Cats: 25
Default

Which gives time for the home rule areas to enact AWB bans (excluding handguns)..
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 11:33 AM   #803
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 6,002
Total Cats: 174
Default

No Democrat wants to to be "the one" who got an AWB case before SCOTUS... because when they lose and AWB's are declared Unconstitutional at the Federal level based on Heller and a few other cases, that particular politician will be forever known as "the one" who sunk the anti's in the biggest battle in all of gun control.

The Cali crew, with their latest "package" of bills bans semi-automatic weapons entirely... and Jerry Brown knows if those bills actually become law, the pile of lawsuits will bury him behind his desk for years. The cost to the broke state will be enormous, and every single case they lose will essentially be a win for gun-rights across the whole country.

As for Madigan, what she really wants to do is anyones guess. I hope the CA7 tells her to shove it. The supermajority's in the senate/house may give the judge ammo to write that the people of IL have clearly spoken on this matter, and that she has given the state too much time already, and that's it's an insult to the court to wait until the 11th hour (and after such a one-sided vote) to ask for an extension to a bill that has been in the debate process for years, where no part of it is any surprise, and where her office had at least some hand in crafting (can't tell me it didn't considering who her father is).

Her delay may be to squeeze in an AWB cutout for Chicago, but considering the momentum in the state currently, expect lawsuits over that quickly, followed by a CA7 ruling, followed by SCOTUS... which they can't win. Chicago/Cook Cnty currently has a "detachable magazine WITH any additional feature", and a long list of specific guns:
DIVISION 4. BLAIR HOLT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 01:27 PM   #804
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,286
Total Cats: 25
Default

I think the biggest thought is that she is continuing to show she is "tough" on guns by drawing this out as long as possible. She is also allowing the home rule entities more time to draft and setup their own standalone AWBs, which have a 10 day grace period with this new proposed law. So if they have an extra month to draft them, the chances of something occuring are higher.

The end goal though is she wants to be Governor...
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 05:34 PM   #805
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,286
Total Cats: 25
Default

Part of this crappy state will be able to Carry starting now... (can still get arrested, but won't be prosecuted).

Concealed carry arrives in Randolph County - News - Randolph County Herald Tribune - Chester, IL
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 02:52 PM   #806
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 6,002
Total Cats: 174
Default

First-Time Buyers Bolster Gun Makers, Retailers | Fox Business

Was doing some rough math on another website... if current trends continue, we're going to blow past 20million NICS check this year, which will mean approx 50million over the last 3 years. If roughly 25% of purchases are new buyer (let's say 20% for shitz and grinz), that means 10 million new gun buyers in the last 3 years.

Now take the 310million population... MINUS 75million under 18, 35million convicted felons, and another 20million or so other prohibited types... you're left with about 170million people who could pass a NICS check. 10/170 means that 5.8% of those who are eligible to buy a gun bought their first gun in the past 3 years...

Granted my numbers are off by a few million (or more) here or there, but in what direction? Worst case, that's still 5% at the lowest... SRSLY, by the end of 2013, almost 10 million people will have bought their first gun in the past 3 years. I personally know about 15 people and counting... about 5 of which I went with them during their purchase.
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 09:23 AM   #807
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,455
Total Cats: 1,698
Default

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 11:31 PM   #808
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 180
Default


This is the perfect reason why they should never take away our guns. Yes it shitty fox. And yes this field reporter has the shittiest job ever. But the point is, you can't rely on police.
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 03:22 PM   #809
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,286
Total Cats: 25
Default

HB183 has been passed in both House and Senate, overriding the amendatory veto from Governer Quinn.

CCW has come to Illinois. Now to just go wait for the process with the ISP as they work with specific time frames to setup instructor requirements/paperwork etc....
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 03:27 PM   #810
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,455
Total Cats: 1,698
Default

So maybe now ill stop seeing news reports every Monday that 20+ odd people were mowed down over the weekend in Chicago?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 04:27 PM   #811
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,538
Total Cats: 151
Default

So in the event that crime rates drop significantly in Illinois/Chicago over the next few years what angle will anti-gunners take?

Attached Thumbnails
Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?-dgtbcjj_zpsf08c9138.jpg  
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 04:53 PM   #812
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,165
Total Cats: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
So in the event that crime rates drop significantly in Illinois/Chicago over the next few years what angle will anti-gunners take?

Because they are scary.

gearhead_318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 05:23 PM   #813
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,125
Total Cats: 187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
So in the event that crime rates drop significantly in Illinois/Chicago over the next few years what angle will anti-gunners take?
This is exactly why Chicago is such a huge loss for anti-gunners on a GLOBAL scale. The one leg they have been standing on for years is this: Guns kill people.

Introducing concealed carry in the most violent city in the country is going to open a LOT of eyes. At this point in world history, the best data we have on pro/anti-guns is "what happens when you make all guns illegal in a place where they're already highly limited?" Chicago will be a global case study for decades on "What happens when you grant law-abiding citizens the right to swiftly kill in self-defense?"

If violent crime in Chicago over the next 3-5 years swings as the vast majority of us expect it to, this will be the aircraft carrier that broke the camel's back.

That, and perhaps piers morgan will return to the UK during the next 3-5 years and be very nearly stabbed/beaten/bludgeoned to death in a dark alley by "gangbangers with no motive"... (NSA, are you listening??? K, Just checking.)
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 07:23 PM   #814
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,286
Total Cats: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
So maybe now ill stop seeing news reports every Monday that 20+ odd people were mowed down over the weekend in Chicago?
Give it a couple years, oh and it was 70+ shot this last holiday weekend... 12(?) dead.
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 08:51 PM   #815
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 6,002
Total Cats: 174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fooger03 View Post
Chicago will be a global case study for decades on "What happens when you grant law-abiding citizens the right to swiftly kill in self-defense?"
Fooger, perhaps you misspoke, but allow me to correct a gross error in that sentence.

SELF-DEFENSE of any kind, including the use of lethal force, IS NOT ABOUT KILLING. Whether your defensive weapon of choice (necessity) is a nail file or a firearm, there is no grey area when it comes to the goal of self-defense. The goal of self defense is to stop the actions of another that you feel is currently or about to cause you (or another innocent) great bodily harm or death... NOTHING MORE. Shooting someone in self-defense with the intent to actually kill them is murder, no matter the circumstances. It is in no way correct to ever say that anybody has the "right" to kill somebody else, and in no way did the state of Illinois grant this.

I've spoken to this very issue at least once previously in this thread and several times in the "another gun thread" thread. Most "non-gun-inclined" (my new catch-term that includes the truly anti-gun and those who are indifferent) people believe the goal of shooting someone is to kill them, which is why most NGI people will ask "Why couldn't you shoot them in the leg" instead of killing them, wrongly believing that any shot without the specific "intent to wound" is a defacto "intent to kill".

Any shooting course, even the "NRA Basic Pistol Course" covers to some degree the legalities of use of a firearm in self-defense, and instructors are usually adamant that before a person chooses to carry or possess a firearm for self-defense, that they know their state/local laws, particularly SYG/CD/DTR stuff. I am an enormous proponent of training, and believe that everybody should should save up for a dedicated "Defensive Pistolcraft Course" when they first start carrying.

I'll also pontificate that some of the most uninformed individuals I've met when it comes to self-defense are devout gun guys who think they know the law but are the first to spout the age old mantra of the truly ignorant... "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6". Basically that they'll shoot first (to kill) and worry about the law later.

I've always hated that phrase and do my best to educate those I find who use it. An even better albeit longer phrase would sound something like "When carrying, I will always do my absolute best to avoid any confrontation of any kind, but in the event that a person has made up their mind that they are going to kill me, and are leaving me no other option, I feel confident that my training and education will allow me to legally and use lethal force in self-defense."

Again, this is not grey area in court, and is one of the biggest pieces of "ammo" that gun owners give the anti's when it comes to laws like SYG. Let's say a guy is confronted with the standard scenario of "Bad guy jumps out from behind dumpster with a knife and says "Give me all your money". Good guy draws gun, shoots twice... once in the chest, and the second (due to muzzle rise) in the head.

Police show up and start asking questions... good guy, still charged with adrenaline, pissed, scared, excited, etc... says something like "That mother-****** tried to rob me and I shot his *** dead." That one phrase just gave an anti-gun DA everything he needs to pursue a murder-2 charge. "You honor, you can see quite clearly that although Mr.Jones could have simply run away, he chose to murder in cold-blood this poor soul with an execution-style shot to the head, and showed no remorse on the scene, even admitting to murder when the police asked him what he'd done"... AGAIN, NO GREY AREA.

I absolutely support the 16hr training requirement for Illinois CCW applicants and HOPE HOPE HOPE HOPE that the people in charge of drafting the training requirements mandate about half of that time be dedicated to the study of self-defense mindset/law/history. I think most states would do better to adopt more stringent training requirements.
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 08:50 AM   #816
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,125
Total Cats: 187
Default

I intentionally and specifically avoided suggesting that anyone had the right to "murder" in self defense. Killing a non-combatant with intent to kill is murder in all possible scenarios except for one two:

1. Death penalty ordered by a jury.
2. Death penalty ordered by a court-martial.

Armed citizens do not have a right to intentionally kill; they have a right to self-defense. If an aggressor is shot in legitimate self-defense and dies as a result of his wounds, then the Armed citizen has legally killed the aggressor. Since such a defense can cause death immediately or within seconds, the unintended death may be quite swift, and I still consider my question as accurrate: What happens when you grant law-abiding citizens the right to swiftly kill in self-defense?

If someone has a gun pointed at my friend, I'm not going to shoot them in the leg, I'm going to aim for the face if I'm close enough, or the torso if I'm not close enough. If this aggressor is really intent on killing my friend, shooting him in the leg is not going to prevent him from pulling the trigger and then turning the gun on me; it will merely **** him off. In this case, shooting the aggressor in the leg will not neutralize the threat of death to my friend. Hopefully, If I am forced to shoot into the torso, the aggressor can be neutralized with shock and confusion enough to make an escape. Regardless of the aggressors shock/confusion I will continue shooting into the torso while advancing until I determine that the aggressor is no longer an immediate and unescapable threat, because he dropped the weapon/ran/fell unconscious/surrendered/my friend and I achieved a covered avenue of escape/etc.

On the other hand, if I'm being chased by an unreasonable person with a bat and I can't outrun them or get help, then I'm going to shoot that motherf*cker in the hips/groin/thigh area. Being a responsible citizen, I will then alert police and medical facilities (via 911) to send an ambulance and police cruisers before either beginning first aid or observing from a safe distance, situation dependant. Unfortunately for the aggressor, If I hit the wrong artery, he might die anyways.
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 12:08 PM   #817
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 6,002
Total Cats: 174
Default

^Ah... the difference between "kill" and "murder". I would still argue that there is no "right to kill". So would any lawyer. An unintended consequence of the legal use of lethal (or even non-lethal) force against a person may result in death... ie, you legally killed somebody. You cannot take that legal action and morph it into the phrase "you now have the "right" to kill somebody". I'll start a thread over at TFL and see if some of the lawyers that frequent that site can weigh in in this... good topic.

You also give a few scenarios, indicating great ignorance about the defensive use of firearms, and advocate tactics that no recognized school teaches, and are almost guaranteed to end up with a grand jury recommending to a DA that you be charged with a crime.

Shooting somebody in the head is "intent to kill", regardless of the distance or circumstances. Any decent prosecutor will have no problem picking apart any scenario you can come up with to illustrate it. Head-shots are a big no-no. There is one story that I'll try to find that has been the only exception I've ever heard of (disabled guy comes across cop being beaten do death, shoots attacker 5 times in torso with no effect, bad guy goes for cops gun, and disabled guy puts one in his melon).

You even go so far as to advocate "shoot to wound", which is the #1 "DON'T EVER DO THIS" tactic in all of defensive shooting. You will not be able to convince a judge or jury that you were "in fear for your life" if you intentionally shoot to wound. If you "shoot to wound", and the guy later dies, you've just murdered him... go directly to jail.
Never shoot to wound

These are the things that most people who know guns and "think" they have a good handle on "what to do", really don't. I can't imagine you've ever done some serious reading by experts or taken a firearms self-defense class?
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 12:38 PM   #818
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,538
Total Cats: 151
Default

I'll just leave this here......

Attached Thumbnails
Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?-944747_10201657253979157_941502955_n_zps1a0cd4f1.jpg  
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 12:45 PM   #819
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,286
Total Cats: 25
Default

Thanks for covering that Sam. I have also been under the impression that if I ever need to pull my firearm, it will be a me or them situation and i will be shooting for torso (biggest target under pressure), to stop them by whatever means necessary (killing them).

This is why I have the certifications/cards/gear... and have not concealed carried yet (let alone not able to in my state yet), because I still grapple with being able to make that decision. I can say I will, but the remote possibility of it happening causes me hesitation. With a kid on the way though... that threshold is being lowered and my desire to protect my family continues to grow. The idea of letting anyone harm/kill my family if I had the possibility of stopping it... is unacceptable.

"Be Prepared", despite the battering the Scouts keep going through... its a great motto.
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 12:51 PM   #820
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,455
Total Cats: 1,698
Default

Make sure to yell your name really loud and yell something like, "I have no other choice," else the major might pressure people to charge you with a crime and ruin your life.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turbo 1995 Miata Low mileage Clean Tekel Cars for sale/trade 29 02-05-2016 04:16 PM
IT Pros: HELP! Al Jazeera something something Brighthouse Account sixshooter Insert BS here 11 09-01-2015 10:51 AM
Who's Idea was it to give cops taser guns RicanmiataRacer Insert BS here 10 03-04-2007 02:07 PM
Is the SMT6 comparable to the Emanage Blue/Emu/MS? Mex Prefabbed Turbo Kits 1 09-28-2006 04:15 PM
FS: Turbo XS H34 BOV BrokeEnthusiast Miata parts for sale/trade 1 09-06-2006 10:16 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 PM.