Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG? - Page 60 - 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 09-28-2015, 11:17 AM   #1181
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 14,391
Total Cats: 1,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
I like Snopes.

Quote:
Origins: When Democrat Robert C. Soles, Jr. announced at the end of 2009 that he would not be seeking re-election to his office representing the 8th district in the North Carolina Senate, he stepped down as the longest-serving legislator in that state, having served in the North Carolina House of Representatives from 1969 to 1976 and from 1977 onwards in the Senate. Soles' decision not to run for re-election again may have been influenced by an August 2009 incident in which Soles shot 22-year-old Kyle Blackburn in the leg, claiming that he had fired in self-defense after Blackburn and another young man trespassed on his property and attempted to kick in his door. In February 2010, Soles pled guilty to a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge: The 75-year-old claim[ed] he shot Blackburn in self defense after Blackburn and 23-year-old Billie Wright kicked at his door. Soles faced charges of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. Blackburn has since recovered from the shooting.

During the trial, the state used a 40-minute surveillance tape taken at Soles' home during the time of the shooting as evidence. The state said Blackburn, Wright, and a woman spent more than an hour trespassing on the senator's property, drinking alcohol before kicking the door.

Soles' attorney, Joe Chesire, said the state gave a fair account of what happened the night of the shooting, and that the senator wanted to take responsibility for his actions. He will pay more than $1,000 in court costs.
However, commentaries on the shooting (like the one reproduced above) which portrayed Senator Soles as a hypocritical, virulently anti-gun legislator "who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public" are not supported by the evidence. According to Project VoteSmart, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF), the NRA political action committee that ranks political candidates based on voting records, public statements and their responses to NRA-PVF questionnaires, had assigned the following grades to Senator Soles over the previous decade:
  • 1998 - B
  • 2000 - B+
  • 2002 - B+
  • 2004 - A
  • 2006 - A
  • 2008 - A
As well, Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC), an "organization dedicated to preserving individual rights, particularly your right to keep and bear arms" said of the criticisms of Senator Soles: An alert from a national organization not up to speed on local North Carolina political issues condemning Senator R.C. SOLES over the recent shooting at his home has been circulating recently. Part of a fund raising alert from the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) calls Soles "the most virulent anti-Second Amendment activist in the state" and the "most vociferous anti-gun zealot in North Carolina."

As much fun as it is to catch anti-gun politicians in their own hypocrisy, this is not such a case. In the interest of fair play and truth, GRNC is compelled to point out that while not excellent, R.C. Soles is not a "virulent anti-Second Amendment activist" nor a "vociferous anti-gun zealot." [T]he charges are simply not true — he is mediocre at worst and has voted with us on most major issues.

Read more at snopes.com: FALSE: Anti-Gun Senator Shoots Intruder
sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM   #1182
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,511
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

conjecture was more fun here...
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2015, 11:48 AM   #1183
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 14,391
Total Cats: 1,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
conjecture was more fun here...
I wholeheartedly agree. I was going to crosspost this story elsewhere and was looking for other sources or I would not have known either.
sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2015, 06:57 PM   #1184
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 5,916
Total Cats: 159
Default

Sorry, was out of town when this happened... seems appropriate now. Remember California Senator Leland Yee, the figurehead for California anti-gun bullshit... was arrested during a huge FBI sting for (among other bad things) being a gun-runner for Chinese mobsters.

Anyways... he plead guilty to some lesser bullshit and will going to prison for awhile. Sentencing will be in October... should get about 10 years.

Leland Yee pleads guilty in corruption case - San Jose Mercury News

That guy is a truly despicable piece of ****.
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2015, 01:22 PM   #1185
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,511
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

if you open carry to walmart, expect your friend to get tackled by police and charged with contempt of cop and resisting arrest.




to be fair, they received a call about two people buying drano... and someone "waving a gun"


notice how they didnt care about the person with the gun whatsoever and only the person that didnt show them enough respect because we you wear a badge you are required by law to suck a big fat dick.



Quote:
Here is the story. Me (in the black) and my friend (in the white) go to Walmart for drano. During this trip, someone notices that my friend is wearing his firearm on his hip. She gets scared of the weapon, even though it is legally its holster at all times and calls the police to report someone going into Walmart with a firearm. Dispatch asks the woman if he was brandishing the firearm. In case you don't know what brandishing means, it means to wave around. So the police arrive on scene with the thought that someone is waving around a gun. I'm sure at this point they would be worried for the safety of the public because there is a firearm involved. Upon arrival, the police scope out the place and talk to people to try and find us, at this point me and my friend leave with drano, he can be seen carrying the drano out of the store in the video, the police spot us. The immediatley tell us to turn around and put our hand up, mine they told to put on the pole. We both comply. I ask "are we under arrest/am I under arrest" the police officer responds with "No" (both officers are very stern and commanding) I drop my hands and laugh because of the ridiculousness and look at my friend. As soon as I laugh, several seconds after putting my hands down, police officer Smith grabs my wrist and twists it behind my back, wrenching my body to turn toward the store. He pushes up on my wrist in an effort to hurt my shoulder or arm and this pushes my body forward in the direction of the building. Officer Hoyt then jumps and and put one arm around my neck and puts my other arm behind my body. I ask again if I am under arrest with no response. I see that my face is unprotected and that they are going to force me to the ground. I attempt to avoid going face first into the ground although the force of both officers slam me into the pavement. Hoyt jumps to slam his knee into the back of my head, bouncing my skull off of the pavement. They begin to roll me, my hands are up and at this point I am just trying to protect myself from head trauma from the ground/officer Hoyt. They roll me on top of my hands with both of their body weight on top of me. At this point I am trying to get the attention of others around me so someone would see what was happening. Officer Hoyt then forcefully covers my mouth with his hand and says "shut up, shut the F#$% up". I am baffled at this moment that my right have been violated in so many ways. They cuff me. All the while this is happening, the guy with the gun who was supposedly waving it around, is standing there gun on hip, uncuffed, watching this happen. They did not secure the weapon they had been called on scene for, instead, they tackle and subdue a person walking with the suspect for laughing and asking questions. The guy with the gun gets cuffed and uncuffed in the matter of minutes, although I am jailed with bail for 72 hours on charges consisting of resisting arrest and attempted assault on a police officer. A felony charge. They also tried to charge me with reckless driving for how I pulled into my parking space, a charge that was later dropped for being ridiculous.


the comments by police in YT are quite humorous.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2015, 08:29 AM   #1186
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,511
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2015, 10:01 AM   #1187
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 1,869
Total Cats: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
the solution to gun violence is solution and ideas.
I support making it illegal to kill people for sport. That would probably solve this problem outright.
vehicular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2015, 10:59 AM   #1188
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,511
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vehicular View Post
I support making it illegal to kill people for sport. That would probably solve this problem outright.
we more solutions like this.

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2015, 11:36 AM   #1189
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,514
Total Cats: 1,749
Default

"Stand-off distance."
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 07:14 AM   #1190
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,511
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2015, 10:28 AM   #1191
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,514
Total Cats: 1,749
Default

Protip: if you don't want people to think that gun owners and CC advocates are crazy, don't use your legally-owned-and-carried gun to shoot shoplifters in the back as they are running away from Home Depot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ges/?tid=sm_fb
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2015, 10:38 AM   #1192
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,511
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

that's exactly what police would have done... (im pretty sure I've proven that point by now)
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2015, 11:04 AM   #1193
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (18)
 
olderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 4,361
Total Cats: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
that's exactly what police would have done... (im pretty sure I've proven that point by now)
Yes, but licensed carriers are supposed to be smarter than the police.
olderguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2015, 11:19 AM   #1194
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,511
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

yes, agreed. this person should be charged with a handful of charges despite good intentions of killing someone over someone else's stolen property.

you cant claim you carry for self defense and then go off and use it for offense.

Last edited by olderguy; 10-08-2015 at 12:18 PM. Reason: spelling
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 01:09 PM   #1195
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,514
Total Cats: 1,749
Default

The Washington Post is not typically known for being a bastion of conservative, right-wing expression.

What liberals don?t want to admit about gun control - The Washington Post



What liberals don’t want to admit about gun control

By Max Ehrenfreund October 9

Following the fatal shooting of nine people at a community college in southern Oregon last week, President Obama renewed his call for "sufficient, common-sense gun-safety laws." Yet there is only limited evidence that piecemeal regulation of the kind that policymakers in Washington and in state houses around the country are considering would substantially reduce gun fatalities.

Take a prohibition on assault weapons, one of the most common proposals. The ban might make mass shootings less deadly, but most homicides are committed with handguns. A rule that owners must store their guns under lock and key -- if it were followed -- would help keep guns away from suicidal adolescents, but wouldn't protect adults in a violent domestic dispute. Requiring background checks for private sales and transfers would make it harder for convicted felons to buy guns secondhand, but some would still buy guns as a favor to brothers or boyfriends who wouldn't qualify themselves.

Civilians in the United States already own more than enough guns to arm every American man, woman and child. Each of those weapons could end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. As a result, experts say, the main reason that guns cause the deaths of so many Americans is just that America has so many guns. And while most gun-control proposals aim to keep guns out of the wrong hands -- measures that could certainly save lives -- they do not generally address the sheer quantity of guns in this country.

"The big problem is the guns," said David Hemenway, a professor of public health at Harvard University.

"Guns are incredibly lethal," he said. "It's easy to kill with a gun." There aren't other ways to take a life that are equally effective. A knife wound is about eight times less likely, for instance, to take a life than a gunshot wound.

A mandatory buy-back program, along the lines of Australia's highly successful ban on shotguns and semiautomatic and automatic rifles, could be effective in reducing the number of firearms. In Australia's case, a mass shooting at a tourist destination on the island of Tasmania led the country's conservative prime minister to require owners to sell their guns to the government in 1996. The government seized at least 650,000 guns -- about one in five guns in civilian hands at the time. The result was a reduction of nearly 80 percent in the rate of suicides by firearm. And the data suggest that Australians didn't simply use other methods besides guns to commit suicide. The policy likely saved hundreds of lives a year.
Read more: Did gun control work in Australia?
Homicides by firearm also declined sharply, although since there were so few homicides in Australia before the ban, it is hard to know what to make of the data. Yet such broad programs aren't discussed in the current political climate in the United States.

On Monday, Hillary Rodham Clinton laid out a plan to require buyers at gun shows to pass background checks. And Obama is considering similar measures, The Washington Post reported -- bypassing Congress through his executive authority as president to expand background checks into what are currently considered private sales.

There is reason to believe that requiring background checks for all purchases -- not just for transactions at licensed retailers, as current law requires -- could prevent some firearms deaths, though it is not clear how many.

"The best we can do is say, 'The evidence is very suggestive, and it seems to make sense,' " Hemenway said.

Researchers have studied laws in Connecticut and Missouri requiring a purchaser to pass a background check and get a permit in order to buy guns privately. These laws prevented about a few dozen homicides a year, according to those studies. In the case of Connecticut, the law appeared to cause a substantial, 40 percent decline in the gun homicide rate, but again, in a small state with relatively few homicides to begin with, researchers need more information to determine whether the background checks would have a similar effect elsewhere. In Missouri's case, the change in the gun homicide rate was smaller, and it is unclear whether background checks reduce the rate of suicide.

And shootings such as the one last week show that background checks sometimes aren't enough to avert violence.

Authorities say Chris Harper Mercer had 13 guns and took six with him on his rampage at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore. He or members of his family reportedly acquired all of the weapons from retailers, meaning that they passed background checks. Adam Lanza, who authorities say shot and killed 26 at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. in 2012, is said to have killed his mother before taking guns she had purchased.

Maybe more thorough background checks, involving more than just a review of a buyer's criminal and medical records, could have prevented these killings, but it's hard to say. Dylann Roof, the young man who allegedly killed 9 people at a church in Charleston, S.C. in June, passed a background check despite his arrest on a narcotics charge. The arrest should have barred him from purchasing a weapon.

No system of background checks will be perfect at capturing the rare person who sets out to kill many. That said, most gun related deaths a year aren't mass killings, but disputes involving one or two people that go wrong. So far this year, there have been fewer than 400 deaths in shootings in which four or more people were killed or wounded, and about 10,000 firearm homicides in total, according to organizations that monitor gun violence in the United States.

Clinton's plan also calls for revoking the licenses of dealers who "knowingly supply" guns to the black market. It's difficult, though, for law enforcement to prove that a dealer knows who is buying his wares and to what end, said Jay Wachtel, a former agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who spent much of his career on the trail of gun traffickers in Los Angeles.
[Read more: So far in 2015, we’ve had 274 days and 294 mass shootings]
It is true that there are far fewer deaths involving guns in states with more restrictive rules on firearms, according to Hemenway and his colleagues, who thoroughly examined the issue in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2013. At the same time, there are also far fewer guns in those states to begin with. So it's hard to know what to make of the connection.

The study noted that deaths involving firearms (including both suicides and homicides) were more than twice as common in the states with the most lax laws on guns compared to the states with the most stringent laws. Yet when adjusting for the number of guns -- along with demographic variables and the rate of violent deaths not involving firearms -- these two groups of states had identical rates of gun fatalities.

It could be that where fewer people own firearms, more people are willing to support gun-control legislation. That legislation itself might not reduce the rate of fatalities, but because there are fewer guns, there are fewer deaths.

In any case, as long as guns remain so prevalent in American life, it appears that violent shooting deaths will continue. Another shooting, this time on the campus of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, wounded three people and killed another Friday morning.

"The availability of firearms feeds this problem, but then, what the hell are you going to do about it?" asked Wachtel, who now teaches criminal justice at California State University, Fullerton. Meaningful changes to the nation's firearms policy aren't politically feasible, he said: "We're screwed. This is America."
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 07:32 PM   #1196
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 14,391
Total Cats: 1,252
Default

But tighter gun control would have kept those brothers from shooting all those people at the Boston Marathon.
sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2015, 09:34 PM   #1197
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 5,916
Total Cats: 159
Default

The politics of gun control is all smoke and mirrors. The anti-minded politicians know none of their holy-trinity (AWB, background checks, mag limits) will change any relevant gun-crime metric. They pounce on hi-profile incidents to get votes, and nothing more. Notice that not even Obama or Hillary will touch the inner-city warzones of Chicago, Atlanta, or wherever. In the end, the only people the anti's can point fingers at and not look like a racist are the young mentally ill white kids who shoot up colleges and churches. It's politically safe to do so and it furthers every social divide I can think of.

The next big "incident" that will turn into a political ****-storm and really tear the country a new one is when an American-born inner-city black Muslim convert walks into a Rock Church or Mormon Temple with an AK and kills a hundred. Let's see Obama or Hillary dance in that fire with their bullshit.

I've stood on my pulpit before in this thread and nothing has changed in this country that will get the anti's any more traction than they have. For every "common sense" law they get passed in one state, 2 dozen more pro-gun laws get passed in others. They lose ground in every lawmaking session in every state except the usual suspects: CA/NY/CT/NJ/MD. The mag-limit laws in Colorado were a colossal blunder and will be overturned in the next few years. Mando background checks in Oregon last year were due to Bloombergs dollars and marketing in the Portland media and as proven in all the states that have them, do nothing to change any crime metric, but substantially increase the black market trafficking.

The end-goal of groups like the Brady Campaign and Moms Demand Action is outright bans on large categories of weapons and gov't enforced confiscation. They look to Aus and Britain as a template on how to accomplish it and believe pouncing on tragedy is their route. As we can see, after a few years of very hi-profile and politicized mass-shootings, very few people are still buying that bullshit. People lose more faith in the gov't every time something like that happens than they lose faith in their fellow man. Nobody believes that a "no guns allowed" sign is going to protect them, so every time an anti-gun politician gets up and talks about getting rid of guns somehow, all they see and hear is a bunch of words they know are bullshit. Even the most hard-core anti will look at the Oregon shooting and curse the fact that not even the security guard was armed.
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2015, 08:46 AM   #1198
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 14,391
Total Cats: 1,252
Default

sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2015, 08:43 PM   #1199
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,514
Total Cats: 1,749
Default

Attached Thumbnails
Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?-80-980x_b1f6c3c40cde02b1460f3cd24052f3ed7d393bb3.jpg  
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2015, 02:27 PM   #1200
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,514
Total Cats: 1,749
Default

A while back, this was written in counterpoint to speculation that the majority of people in the US do not own guns, that the majority of guns in the US were owned by people who own multiple guns, and that this ratio was increasing, resulting in a growing disproportionality of gun-distribution in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselmiata View Post
But with the population ever increasing, record firearm licences issued, and record gun sales, I find it hard to believe that those sales are concentrated among such a small group. Guns aren't cheap.
This data, which I just came across, demonstrates that amoung US households which presently own guns, the number of guns in that household presently averages 8.1, which is double the number of guns-per-gun-owning-household vs 20 years ago.

So the divide is, in fact, increasing.
Joe Perez 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 02:13 AM.