ExiledInIllinois Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article63271467.html Yay! More guns... Somebody should have fired back!
3rdnlng Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article63271467.html Yay! More guns... Somebody should have fired back! As usual, you're an idiot.
unbillievable Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article63271467.html Yay! More guns... Somebody should have fired back! This could have been prevented if they had upgraded the school to a super double secret gun free zone.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article63271467.html Yay! More guns... Somebody should have fired back! Everyone can agree, students having guns in school is bad. Gun free zones do not stop criminals. Criminals by their nature do not care about laws and are willing to break them, committing their crimes. If there were armed teachers, or security officers at least there would be a better chance to protect the innocent students from being defenselessly slaughtered like sheep. But to what I posted earlier in this thread, what the hell is wrong with our society that allows some punkass kid to feel justified to shoot others. Edited March 1, 2016 by drinkTHEkoolaid
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 Everyone can agree, students having guns in school is bad. Gun free zones do not stop criminals. Criminals by their nature do not care about laws and are willing to break them, committing their crimes. If there were armed teachers, or security officers at least there would be a better chance to protect the innocent students from being defenselessly slaughtered like sheep. But to what I posted earlier in this thread, what the hell is wrong with our society that allows some punkass kid to feel justified to shoot others. Would that be the same society that spawned thrill killers like Leopold & Loeb nearly a century ago? There was no motive there except thrill alone. They are saying that this recent Ohio incident there was a motive, just not saying.
GoPre Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following-home-invasion-believed-to-be-mccloud/ Not expressing my opinion, but must admit I'd like to read what people for guns and people against guns have to say about all of this.
Chef Jim Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following-home-invasion-believed-to-be-mccloud/ Not expressing my opinion, but must admit I'd like to read what people for guns and people against guns have to say about all of this. This is why we should be allowed to own guns in the privacy of our own homes. To protect us against people like Rafael McCloud. Another useless human being disposed of. If they had not had a weapon to protect themselves there would likely be two bodies pulled from that home feet first and neither would be a Mr. Rafael McCloud.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following-home-invasion-believed-to-be-mccloud/ Not expressing my opinion, but must admit I'd like to read what people for guns and people against guns have to say about all of this. Innocent home owners alive and safe, check. Scumbag who wants to hurt people dead, check. Win win.
B-Man Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 Unclear ? ? ? On March 13, CBS News contended that the meaning of the Second Amendment is still unclear and suggested it will be up to Antonin Scalia’s Supreme Court replacement to help decide whether it refers to individual rights or collective rights for persons in the “militia.” To arrive at such a position CBS News does two things: 1. They admit the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v Heller (2008) “affirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.” 2. They cast doubt on whether this decision can be the final by intimating that the real meaning of the Second Amendment is still in doubt among law school professors and members of various think tanks. For example, CBS News used Michael Waldman’s The Second Amendment: A Biography to segue into a discussion about the kinds of rights protected by the Second Amendment. Waldman is the President of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, and he says the Second Amendment is “unusual” and “short” and “clogged with commas.” Waldman writes, “The Second Amendment says, ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ What does that mean?” Again–the Supreme Court has been very clear about what it means. The justices were clear in Heller and clear again in McDonald v Chicago (2010). But Scalia was in the majority opinion in both cases and he is now gone.
boyst Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 I truly appreciate your quality contribution to the conversation. Dismissive, condescending, personal attacks add so much to the discussion and only enhance your excellent reputation as a great, open-minded intellectual. I take it the John Wayne wannabe buffoon in you just overcame you for a moment, eh? This guy is a high-ranking official and I presume knows his job. He's one data point - I offered it up because it was unexpected and a different viewpoint, which I found surprising. I'll take his word any day. how many other data points would you consider? Especially ones that outrank your high ranking official? I offered one and have others. Hell, about a decade ago I met a guy who worked for the state dept and was a leading expert on some part of mexico and all sorts. He said he never wanted anyone to have a gun. And he said that being a gay man, a democrat and on top of that just loathing Republicans he carries every day and twice on Sunday. Not only when in mexico but in this country. He said it is all to common to find yourself in a situation where personal security takes precedence, even if never drawn
Tiberius Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-gun-loving-mom-shot-her-4-old-223917997.html Miami (AFP) - A Florida gun activist accidentally shot by her four-year-old son could be charged with allowing him to get hold of the weapon, authorities said Tuesday. "It is of paramount importance to make certain that guns do not fall into the hands of children. It was very clear that there was a violation here," said Captain Gator DeLoach of the Putnam County Sheriff's Office. Jamie Gilt, 31, who had boasted online about her toddler's shooting prowess, was cruising down a major thoroughfare with her son in the back when he shot her March 8. The bullet went through the seat cushion.
/dev/null Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-gun-loving-mom-shot-her-4-old-223917997.html
frostbitmic Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-gun-loving-mom-shot-her-4-old-223917997.html Captain Gator DeLoach ? ..... Doesn't that say enough ? As far as the woman being shot by her 4 year old, good job kid.
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-gun-loving-mom-shot-her-4-old-223917997.html What's your point?
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 What's your point? Manatee Idea Balls man. That can be the only reason regarding his posts.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 What's your point? The kid failed? One more FLA idiot survives?
B-Man Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 New Jersey nonsense: Actor faces 10 years in prison for using a prop gun in movie How insane are New Jersey’s gun laws? Governor Chris Christie has had to issue two general pardons in order to stop or reverse gross miscarriages of justice over nonsensical prosecutions. Will Christie go for the hat trick? Carlo Goias had better hope so, before he does a ten-year stretch in prison because he used a pellet gun while making a film in the Garden State: Carlo Goias, whose stage name is Carlo Bellario, was charged under New Jersey’s strict gun law. It requires permits for firearms, including the airsoft gun Goias used while filming a car chase scene. Goias rejected a plea deal offer Tuesday that could have sent him to jail for less than a year. He faces up to a decade behind bars because of prior felony convictions that prosecutors say include theft and burglary. “I was shooting a movie — I wasn’t committing a crime intentionally,” Goias recently told The Associated Press. “Robert De Niro doesn’t ask Marty Scorsese is if he has gun permits. We’re actors. That’s for the production company to worry about.” Some state lawmakers say the case highlights the need for New Jersey to change its gun laws. Some say? It’s true that Goias hasn’t exactly been an angel, and with his record, no state would allow him to possess firearms. However, in other states, no one would have accused Goias of doing so. A pellet gun does not use gunpowder, so it’s not a firearm — except in New Jersey. The Airsoft gun Goias had doesn’t even fire metal pellets — it fires nonlethal plastic pellets under power of compressed air. It’s a prop, not a threat. More to the point, it would be clear to anyone except a New Jersey prosecutor that there was not only no criminal intent, there was no danger of a crime at all. Goias was acting in a low-budget film, not participating in a heist. The production startled some in the neighborhood, who misunderstood what was happening and called the police. Instead of recognizing this as a misunderstanding, the police arrested Goias, who then got held in jail for four days while his friends and family tried to raise enough money to meet the $10,000 bail demand. Four days in jail. For using a non-lethal air-powered pellet gun. While making a movie. And the case is hardly over — the district attorney plans on prosecuting Goias for felony possession of a firearm to send him back to prison. Goias, who at least had been trying to become a productive member of society, might end up stuck in the criminal cycle for the rest of his life because he took a part in a low-budget movie. Clearly, no film production company of any size should ever do business in New Jersey. And just as clearly, the state’s legislature should take action to put an end to these insane prosecutions of people who have no intent to commit any crime at all. In the meantime, though, Christie should get his pardon pen at the ready to put an end to this injustice, too — if he hasn’t packed it up along with his presidential aspirations.
B-Man Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 5-year old girl suspended for bringing bubble gun to class: More Zero Tolerance Insanity – School unapologetic, promises to do it again (more…) CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE: U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as probably unconstitutional. A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment, setting aside arguments from District officials that the regulation is needed to prevent crime and protect the public. “The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case that established a constitutional right to keep firearms inside one’s home. Leon said the right applies both inside and outside the home. “The District’s understandable, but overzealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind,” he wrote. Exactly right. Related: Ninth Circuit rules that right to buy guns is part of Second Amendment, strikes down county gun-store ban.
DC Tom Posted May 19, 2016 Posted May 19, 2016 New Jersey nonsense: Actor faces 10 years in prison for using a prop gun in movie How insane are New Jersey’s gun laws? Governor Chris Christie has had to issue two general pardons in order to stop or reverse gross miscarriages of justice over nonsensical prosecutions. Will Christie go for the hat trick? Carlo Goias had better hope so, before he does a ten-year stretch in prison because he used a pellet gun while making a film in the Garden State: Carlo Goias, whose stage name is Carlo Bellario, was charged under New Jersey’s strict gun law. It requires permits for firearms, including the airsoft gun Goias used while filming a car chase scene. Goias rejected a plea deal offer Tuesday that could have sent him to jail for less than a year. He faces up to a decade behind bars because of prior felony convictions that prosecutors say include theft and burglary. “I was shooting a movie — I wasn’t committing a crime intentionally,” Goias recently told The Associated Press. “Robert De Niro doesn’t ask Marty Scorsese is if he has gun permits. We’re actors. That’s for the production company to worry about.” Some state lawmakers say the case highlights the need for New Jersey to change its gun laws. Some say? It’s true that Goias hasn’t exactly been an angel, and with his record, no state would allow him to possess firearms. However, in other states, no one would have accused Goias of doing so. A pellet gun does not use gunpowder, so it’s not a firearm — except in New Jersey. The Airsoft gun Goias had doesn’t even fire metal pellets — it fires nonlethal plastic pellets under power of compressed air. It’s a prop, not a threat. More to the point, it would be clear to anyone except a New Jersey prosecutor that there was not only no criminal intent, there was no danger of a crime at all. Goias was acting in a low-budget film, not participating in a heist. The production startled some in the neighborhood, who misunderstood what was happening and called the police. Instead of recognizing this as a misunderstanding, the police arrested Goias, who then got held in jail for four days while his friends and family tried to raise enough money to meet the $10,000 bail demand. Four days in jail. For using a non-lethal air-powered pellet gun. While making a movie. And the case is hardly over — the district attorney plans on prosecuting Goias for felony possession of a firearm to send him back to prison. Goias, who at least had been trying to become a productive member of society, might end up stuck in the criminal cycle for the rest of his life because he took a part in a low-budget movie. Clearly, no film production company of any size should ever do business in New Jersey. And just as clearly, the state’s legislature should take action to put an end to these insane prosecutions of people who have no intent to commit any crime at all. In the meantime, though, Christie should get his pardon pen at the ready to put an end to this injustice, too — if he hasn’t packed it up along with his presidential aspirations. New Jersey definition of a firearm: "Firearm or firearms" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm, which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person. Yeah, he's guilty. Stupid law...but he is guilty.
birdog1960 Posted May 19, 2016 Posted May 19, 2016 guns. not no guns. we just moved. and we have a bear that likes to visit. now i'm not planning on shooting a black bear on my property but i'd do it if it were maiming me or anyone else on my property. then i'd run like hell cuz he'd likely just be very angry, bleeding and not mortally wounded. but do i need a bazooka? a guided missile? an automatic? nah, i'll stick with my shotgun and a slug and my legs to run. cuz if i had any of those other things i might well injure my neighbors or their kids and then i'd feel worse than if the bear maimed me. so guns , yes. but there are limits and we need to set them.
Recommended Posts