Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
01-14-2016, 08:48 AM
#1364
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
[ll]667_1452648888[/ll]
for those who dont want to watch:
Gun ownership challenges the power monopoly of the state. So it is no surprise that state enforcers like police get uncomfortable when citizens exercise their rights to open-carry firearms.
A man in Bridgeport, Connecticut recently found this out while open-carrying in town on Tuesday. Videos he recorded show his interactions with busy-body cops, who follow him from store to store harassing him for a permit that even one of them had to admit that they had no legal right to demand.
The first video begins after the interaction has already been initiated and shows the unidentified man inside a Subway sandwich shop where he says he was just trying to get something to eat.
A man in Bridgeport, Connecticut recently found this out while open-carrying in town on Tuesday. Videos he recorded show his interactions with busy-body cops, who follow him from store to store harassing him for a permit that even one of them had to admit that they had no legal right to demand.
The first video begins after the interaction has already been initiated and shows the unidentified man inside a Subway sandwich shop where he says he was just trying to get something to eat.
for those who dont want to watch:
“Why do I have to show you my permit?” the man asks the first officer that responded to the scene. “I don’t have to show you my permit. I’m not showing you anything. I want to order my food and get up out of here.”
“Let me see your permit,” the cop responds. “I am requesting your permit.”
“Why are you requesting my permit?” the man asks again.
“Because you are armed in a public place,” the cop asserts.
“Is that illegal?” the man asks.
“It’s not,” the officer responds.
“Exactly,” the man says refusing to be cucked. “In a public place, I am the public, you are a public servant. I can walk where I want to. I’m requesting not to show you anything.”
“Do you have your permit?” the cop asks again.
“I’m not answering any questions sir,” the man says. “I’m just in Subway trying to order something to eat.”
Backup then arrives on the scene and another officer enters the establishment and begins rudely addressing the patron.
“Are you a supervisor?” the man asks.
After standing in quiet intimidation for several seconds, the obese cop retorts, “You see the stripes on my sleeve, don’t play games with me man. What’s going on mister video man?”
“Let me see your permit,” the cop responds. “I am requesting your permit.”
“Why are you requesting my permit?” the man asks again.
“Because you are armed in a public place,” the cop asserts.
“Is that illegal?” the man asks.
“It’s not,” the officer responds.
“Exactly,” the man says refusing to be cucked. “In a public place, I am the public, you are a public servant. I can walk where I want to. I’m requesting not to show you anything.”
“Do you have your permit?” the cop asks again.
“I’m not answering any questions sir,” the man says. “I’m just in Subway trying to order something to eat.”
Backup then arrives on the scene and another officer enters the establishment and begins rudely addressing the patron.
“Are you a supervisor?” the man asks.
After standing in quiet intimidation for several seconds, the obese cop retorts, “You see the stripes on my sleeve, don’t play games with me man. What’s going on mister video man?”
Reply
0
0
01-14-2016, 10:58 AM
#1365
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
watch from 3:55 if too long for you. ending is great.
This video contains two separate videos where Kurt Russell talk about gun control.
The first is the view, where Kurt talks about the 2nd Amendment and why we have always needed to protect ourselves from tyrannical governments- as shown in history.
The second interview is for a printed article by Jeffery Wells- Kurt Russell Walks Off this second Interview because he realizes Jeff has a clear agenda and Kurt takes no bait- and lays it all out.
The first is the view, where Kurt talks about the 2nd Amendment and why we have always needed to protect ourselves from tyrannical governments- as shown in history.
The second interview is for a printed article by Jeffery Wells- Kurt Russell Walks Off this second Interview because he realizes Jeff has a clear agenda and Kurt takes no bait- and lays it all out.
Reply
0
0
01-28-2016, 04:11 PM
#1366
Mother ******...
Gov. McAuliffe Reverses Course: Restoring Concealed Carry Reciprocity with 25 States - Breitbart
Associated Press - NewsAdvance.com
What a piece of **** we have for a Governor... **** that guy! He never had any intention of getting that **** to stick. He whips it out the month before the main legislative season and uses it as a bargaining chip to get some other **** passed. Granted, the **** he's getting is complete drivel, but it's a net loss for us.
And no, I don't think people who have permanent restraining orders should carry because they lack basic judgement skills, but having a restraining order doesn't mean you were ever convicted of domestic violence... AND YOU CAN STILL BUY ALL THE GUNS YOU WANT... the law just says you can't carry. Which means absolutely nothing because dudes who want to kill their ex won't let a "you can't carry" law stop them from using a gun, or a knife, or their fists.
And "voluntary" background checks at gunshows... sure, I bet the line is gonna be real long at the State Police table for those, especially when they say it's $30 per transfer and both the buyer AND seller need checks.
It's a net loss for us. **** that guy.
Gov. McAuliffe Reverses Course: Restoring Concealed Carry Reciprocity with 25 States - Breitbart
Associated Press - NewsAdvance.com
What a piece of **** we have for a Governor... **** that guy! He never had any intention of getting that **** to stick. He whips it out the month before the main legislative season and uses it as a bargaining chip to get some other **** passed. Granted, the **** he's getting is complete drivel, but it's a net loss for us.
And no, I don't think people who have permanent restraining orders should carry because they lack basic judgement skills, but having a restraining order doesn't mean you were ever convicted of domestic violence... AND YOU CAN STILL BUY ALL THE GUNS YOU WANT... the law just says you can't carry. Which means absolutely nothing because dudes who want to kill their ex won't let a "you can't carry" law stop them from using a gun, or a knife, or their fists.
And "voluntary" background checks at gunshows... sure, I bet the line is gonna be real long at the State Police table for those, especially when they say it's $30 per transfer and both the buyer AND seller need checks.
It's a net loss for us. **** that guy.
Reply
0
0
02-04-2016, 09:53 PM
#1368
Kolbe vs hogan (formerly kolbe vs o'malley) had a surprise decision today. The potential for this applying nationally is there. Basically the 4th circuit is passing this back to the lower courts with instructions to use strict scrutiny. It will be very difficult for MD to win this case with that requirement. Fk frosh.
Reply
0
0
02-05-2016, 09:28 PM
#1372
I'm not sure of the best way to make our judges. I've never been in favor of any current method, whether it be vote or appointment. My strong opinion is that the President should not be the one to appoint Supreme Court Justices and that they should not be life terms. However, I don't actually have a solution that I like other than myself appointing every judge in the country based upon my own personal moral standards.
I almost spit out my Woodford Reserve when I read that Hillary said that Obama would make a good Supreme Court Justice... a "lawyer" who practiced in the most general terms for a very short period of time and cut his teeth upon the holy ground of liberal sin, Chicago. If there was ever any doubt regarding the plague upon our nation she would be if elected, that statement pretty much sealed it.
I almost spit out my Woodford Reserve when I read that Hillary said that Obama would make a good Supreme Court Justice... a "lawyer" who practiced in the most general terms for a very short period of time and cut his teeth upon the holy ground of liberal sin, Chicago. If there was ever any doubt regarding the plague upon our nation she would be if elected, that statement pretty much sealed it.
Reply
0
0
02-05-2016, 09:57 PM
#1373
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
It's a tough call.
The present system, whereby judges are appointed (by the executive) and confirmed (by the legislature) to life terms has two advantages:
1: It prevents any one administration from stacking the court, by limiting the availability of vacancies, and
2: It assures that, as a long-term average, the political leaning of the court will tend to reflect that of a majority of the electorate, without being immediately responsive to short-term / extremist swings in popular opinion.
For an appellate court, this is actually a reasonably good set of metrics. In order to assure the integrity of the concept of stare decisis, you actually want the appellate court to lag somewhat behind the courts of first impression, and have what engineers would call a high damping factor on changes in sociopolitical leaning.
The present system, whereby judges are appointed (by the executive) and confirmed (by the legislature) to life terms has two advantages:
1: It prevents any one administration from stacking the court, by limiting the availability of vacancies, and
2: It assures that, as a long-term average, the political leaning of the court will tend to reflect that of a majority of the electorate, without being immediately responsive to short-term / extremist swings in popular opinion.
For an appellate court, this is actually a reasonably good set of metrics. In order to assure the integrity of the concept of stare decisis, you actually want the appellate court to lag somewhat behind the courts of first impression, and have what engineers would call a high damping factor on changes in sociopolitical leaning.
Reply
0
0
02-05-2016, 11:04 PM
#1374
"Our distinguished dissenting colleague asserts that we have imprudently and unnecessarily broken with our sister courts of appeal and infers that we will bear some responsibility for future mass shootings. In our view, inferences of this nature have no place in judicial opinions and we will not respond beyond noting this. The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on a popular vote of the circuits and it is neither improper nor imprudent for us to disagree with the other circuits addressing this issue. We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester"
This says a lot.
Reply
0
0
02-06-2016, 11:37 AM
#1377
The message from that video is exactly the same as "you don't need a machine gun to hunt deer." It plays to the bottom-feeder-low-information-spoon-fed-from-Facebook types who have zero understanding of the Constitution, and who for the most part could care less about guns until a bunch of white kids in a school or white people in a theater get killed.
I can't say this next part enough... understanding that there is no gun law short of full gov't enforced confiscation of all guns that will "stop" the anti-gun people. The mass propaganda supported by the liberal media is a many pronged attack at all types of gun owners and all reasons for owning guns. To them, there is no difference between the owner of a single-shot hunting rifle and an AR15. Their propaganda is aimed at the white middle-class who are not only the bulk of voters, but are the bulk of gun purchasers... converting the wrong type of gun owner into the current "right" type of gun-owner is a near-term goal... with the end goal of getting those people to not buy any new guns and to feel they don't really need the one(s) that they currently have. This also serves to divide gun owners against eachother... those elderly white "sportsman" vs. everyone else who owns a gun.
Propaganda:
1. Guns in the house make you less safe.
2. Guns in public makes us less safe.
3. All concealed carriers can't wait to murder somebody claiming stand-your-ground.
4. Shooting in self-defense is murder.
5. People who own military-style weapons have small dicks.
6. Nobody needs more than 7 rounds to defend themselves.
7. Hunters only need 1 round to hunt.
8. Nobody needs big bullets.
9. Women will have their guns taken away and used against them.
10. Concealed carriers have never stopped a shooting.
11. Castle Doctrine is a licence to murder.
12. Only the police have the training to properly use a gun.
13. I could go on for whole ******* page.
People who argue that "The Founding Fathers would never have written the 2A like they did if they'd have known what modern weapons could do" have bought into "You don't need a machine gun to hunt deer" because the anti-gunners have told them for decades that's what the 2A is for... so rednecks Fudds can kill Bambi. When you ask somebody who has bought into that one simple question... the only question, they are reflexed for a specific answer.
Question: "You mean if the Founding Fathers had known about AR15's, they wouldn't have wanted the people to have a last resort against the tyrrany of the gov't, which was the primary reason for the Revolution?"
Answer: Assuming the first words out of their mouth aren't "What revolution"... which is what you'll likely get from people under the age of 30 who have no ******* clue about American history, but that they resort to the propaganda answer.
Actual answer: "The gov't has tanks and fighter jets, and guns won't be any use against that." The obvious response is to talk about insurgent actions against 1st world militarys and how effective the mujahadeen was against Russia and how the Taliban has found ways to kick our *** for decades, etc... but that's not really helpful.
Retort: "You mean that when "We The People" en mass reach the point where we feel the gov't has lost faith and we take up arms... that the President is going to send the military to bomb our neighborhoods as punishment, killing families in their homes? I guarantee you that many leaders of the revolution will be military personnel. Don't you think that's the reason the 2A was written the way it is, and is even more of a reason to own modern weapons?"
Then the discussion trends towards the gov't agencies that are normally used to do what they have been brainwashed to believe the military will do. All the 3-letter agencies in black SUV's and SWAT teams that are already being used in this manner every day... then we talk about "lives matter" and they try to argue that they're not racists and/or that they support the police and or blah blah...
But I digress... then I ask them if they would be willing to shut off their Facebook profile and ditch cable TV for 6 months as an experiment... you can imagine how that goes. Low-information social media is like a drug on the brain... would make an interesting study.
I can't say this next part enough... understanding that there is no gun law short of full gov't enforced confiscation of all guns that will "stop" the anti-gun people. The mass propaganda supported by the liberal media is a many pronged attack at all types of gun owners and all reasons for owning guns. To them, there is no difference between the owner of a single-shot hunting rifle and an AR15. Their propaganda is aimed at the white middle-class who are not only the bulk of voters, but are the bulk of gun purchasers... converting the wrong type of gun owner into the current "right" type of gun-owner is a near-term goal... with the end goal of getting those people to not buy any new guns and to feel they don't really need the one(s) that they currently have. This also serves to divide gun owners against eachother... those elderly white "sportsman" vs. everyone else who owns a gun.
Propaganda:
1. Guns in the house make you less safe.
2. Guns in public makes us less safe.
3. All concealed carriers can't wait to murder somebody claiming stand-your-ground.
4. Shooting in self-defense is murder.
5. People who own military-style weapons have small dicks.
6. Nobody needs more than 7 rounds to defend themselves.
7. Hunters only need 1 round to hunt.
8. Nobody needs big bullets.
9. Women will have their guns taken away and used against them.
10. Concealed carriers have never stopped a shooting.
11. Castle Doctrine is a licence to murder.
12. Only the police have the training to properly use a gun.
13. I could go on for whole ******* page.
People who argue that "The Founding Fathers would never have written the 2A like they did if they'd have known what modern weapons could do" have bought into "You don't need a machine gun to hunt deer" because the anti-gunners have told them for decades that's what the 2A is for... so rednecks Fudds can kill Bambi. When you ask somebody who has bought into that one simple question... the only question, they are reflexed for a specific answer.
Question: "You mean if the Founding Fathers had known about AR15's, they wouldn't have wanted the people to have a last resort against the tyrrany of the gov't, which was the primary reason for the Revolution?"
Answer: Assuming the first words out of their mouth aren't "What revolution"... which is what you'll likely get from people under the age of 30 who have no ******* clue about American history, but that they resort to the propaganda answer.
Actual answer: "The gov't has tanks and fighter jets, and guns won't be any use against that." The obvious response is to talk about insurgent actions against 1st world militarys and how effective the mujahadeen was against Russia and how the Taliban has found ways to kick our *** for decades, etc... but that's not really helpful.
Retort: "You mean that when "We The People" en mass reach the point where we feel the gov't has lost faith and we take up arms... that the President is going to send the military to bomb our neighborhoods as punishment, killing families in their homes? I guarantee you that many leaders of the revolution will be military personnel. Don't you think that's the reason the 2A was written the way it is, and is even more of a reason to own modern weapons?"
Then the discussion trends towards the gov't agencies that are normally used to do what they have been brainwashed to believe the military will do. All the 3-letter agencies in black SUV's and SWAT teams that are already being used in this manner every day... then we talk about "lives matter" and they try to argue that they're not racists and/or that they support the police and or blah blah...
But I digress... then I ask them if they would be willing to shut off their Facebook profile and ditch cable TV for 6 months as an experiment... you can imagine how that goes. Low-information social media is like a drug on the brain... would make an interesting study.
Reply
0
0
05-09-2016, 08:17 AM
#1380
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
James W. Moody had committed no crime, had not been suspected of committing a crime, and had harmed no one when he was approached by a Philadelphia cop who demanded he show his ID.
Officer Cave, badge Number 4068, witnessed Moody legally practicing his 2nd Amendment right and decided that he needed to see his license to carry a firearm. Admitting that he had no reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop, the cop attempted to ‘trick’ Moody into identifying himself.
Moody cited Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act, Sec 6108. that explains the act of carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia, noting that he was well within his rights to be walking down the street with a holstered pistol.
Read more at VIDEO: 50-Year-old Man Flexes His Rights as He’s Swarmed by Cops For Legally Open Carrying – The Free Thought Project
Officer Cave, badge Number 4068, witnessed Moody legally practicing his 2nd Amendment right and decided that he needed to see his license to carry a firearm. Admitting that he had no reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop, the cop attempted to ‘trick’ Moody into identifying himself.
Moody cited Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act, Sec 6108. that explains the act of carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia, noting that he was well within his rights to be walking down the street with a holstered pistol.
Read more at VIDEO: 50-Year-old Man Flexes His Rights as He’s Swarmed by Cops For Legally Open Carrying – The Free Thought Project
lol at teh cop saying "im not a lawyer" when he clearly doesn't know the laws he's paid substantially well to enforce.
Reply
0
0
