Da ebil guns...cuz we need to talk about them again.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Ah. Time to disarm the population once again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

Evidently, bad guys are to be protected. Isn't it amazing how they're saying if you're a law abiding citizen, we're damn sure NOT going to allow you to protect yourself from some poor, defenseless criminal?
Rather than, as they should, passing harsher sentencing against those that perpetuate crimes, including gun crime, but no. They'd rather say 'we're going to tell states to ******** the second amendment, and threaten to punish any state that dares let their citizens protect themselves!!

[GunsmithKitten]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Hey, GSK, two quick questions for you:

Do you ever get the feeling the R. Neil Smith actually has his s**t straight with this quote:

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

Straighter than Spike TV in a hot wings contest.

Quote:

And Question two: Is your store having a hard time keeping AR parts in stock? They're getting harder to find than an opened bottle of beer at one of my family reunions.

Yea, but it's not a new thing for us. Cops are a real big customer for those suckers just for their personal rifles.

[GunsmithKitten]

Comrade Texada Wolf

GunsmithKitten

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Old Blue Collar Joe

Blind Guardian the 2nd

They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.

And your proof of such?

I said probably, indicating that it is speculation based from the observation that someone is more likely to intervene in a dispute if they are less likely to be seriously injured by doing so.

Because again, you can't get seriously injured with a bat, a knife, a broken bottle, a rock...

You have to put a lot effort and thought in seriously injuring a person with said things

.

Yea,l because it's not like a little girl or something can kill with them, ri...



And the guy who wrecked my leg with a crowbar? All he needed was a couple of beers and a lonely heart to damn near cripple me.

[Major Lima Charlie]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ah. Time to disarm the population once again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

Evidently, bad guys are to be protected. Isn't it amazing how they're saying if you're a law abiding citizen, we're damn sure NOT going to allow you to protect yourself from some poor, defenseless criminal?
Rather than, as they should, passing harsher sentencing against those that perpetuate crimes, including gun crime, but no. They'd rather say 'we're going to tell states to ******** the second amendment, and threaten to punish any state that dares let their citizens protect themselves!!

My issue with Florida's stand your ground law is that it gives a police officer judicial authority and I cannot support legislation which tramples the separation of powers. If they fixed that and made some of the language clearer (especially regarding what constitutes a reasonable threat), I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

As it stands, it's largely a blank check for people with twitchy trigger fingers and/or vindictive personality types. Should the law be scrapped? Depends upon how difficult it is to change it. If it proves to be impossible to change, scrap it and come up with a better law. Rather that than all the dithering about.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

I think most guns are used for recreation and very few are used to kill.

8000 homicides annually in the U.S. (Not suicide), that includes self defense.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Corporal Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ah. Time to disarm the population once again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

Evidently, bad guys are to be protected. Isn't it amazing how they're saying if you're a law abiding citizen, we're damn sure NOT going to allow you to protect yourself from some poor, defenseless criminal?
Rather than, as they should, passing harsher sentencing against those that perpetuate crimes, including gun crime, but no. They'd rather say 'we're going to tell states to ******** the second amendment, and threaten to punish any state that dares let their citizens protect themselves!!

My issue with Florida's stand your ground law is that it gives a police officer judicial authority and I cannot support legislation which tramples the separation of powers. If they fixed that and made some of the language clearer (especially regarding what constitutes a reasonable threat), I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

As it stands, it's largely a blank check for people with twitchy trigger fingers and/or vindictive personality types. Should the law be scrapped? Depends upon how difficult it is to change it. If it proves to be impossible to change, scrap it and come up with a better law. Rather that than all the dithering about.

That's a crock of s**t. The cops don't determine whether or not charges are pressed. All they do is gather evidence and send it to the DA, who then determines whether or not to pursue charges. To even attempt to say the cops determine this is wildly inaccurate.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Suicidesoldier#1

I think most guns are used for recreation and very few are used to kill.

8000 homicides annually in the U.S. (Not suicide), that includes self defense.

And we have over 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone. Yep. Gun owners are absolutely terrifying.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Suicidesoldier#1

I think most guns are used for recreation and very few are used to kill.

8000 homicides annually in the U.S. (Not suicide), that includes self defense.

And we have over 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone. Yep. Gun owners are absolutely terrifying.

3nodding

The most dangerous thing they are used for is suicide, which is like 16,000 of the deaths with them. O_o

[Major Lima Charlie]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Corporal Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ah. Time to disarm the population once again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

Evidently, bad guys are to be protected. Isn't it amazing how they're saying if you're a law abiding citizen, we're damn sure NOT going to allow you to protect yourself from some poor, defenseless criminal?
Rather than, as they should, passing harsher sentencing against those that perpetuate crimes, including gun crime, but no. They'd rather say 'we're going to tell states to ******** the second amendment, and threaten to punish any state that dares let their citizens protect themselves!!

My issue with Florida's stand your ground law is that it gives a police officer judicial authority and I cannot support legislation which tramples the separation of powers. If they fixed that and made some of the language clearer (especially regarding what constitutes a reasonable threat), I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

As it stands, it's largely a blank check for people with twitchy trigger fingers and/or vindictive personality types. Should the law be scrapped? Depends upon how difficult it is to change it. If it proves to be impossible to change, scrap it and come up with a better law. Rather that than all the dithering about.

That's a crock of s**t. The cops don't determine whether or not charges are pressed. All they do is gather evidence and send it to the DA, who then determines whether or not to pursue charges. To even attempt to say the cops determine this is wildly inaccurate.

I did not say that they pursue charges. I am referring to the ability of the police to decide whether or not to arrest someone who has killed another person. A judge decides that, not a cop. Just ask Gunsmith about that.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Corporal Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Corporal Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ah. Time to disarm the population once again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

Evidently, bad guys are to be protected. Isn't it amazing how they're saying if you're a law abiding citizen, we're damn sure NOT going to allow you to protect yourself from some poor, defenseless criminal?
Rather than, as they should, passing harsher sentencing against those that perpetuate crimes, including gun crime, but no. They'd rather say 'we're going to tell states to ******** the second amendment, and threaten to punish any state that dares let their citizens protect themselves!!

My issue with Florida's stand your ground law is that it gives a police officer judicial authority and I cannot support legislation which tramples the separation of powers. If they fixed that and made some of the language clearer (especially regarding what constitutes a reasonable threat), I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

As it stands, it's largely a blank check for people with twitchy trigger fingers and/or vindictive personality types. Should the law be scrapped? Depends upon how difficult it is to change it. If it proves to be impossible to change, scrap it and come up with a better law. Rather that than all the dithering about.

That's a crock of s**t. The cops don't determine whether or not charges are pressed. All they do is gather evidence and send it to the DA, who then determines whether or not to pursue charges. To even attempt to say the cops determine this is wildly inaccurate.

I did not say that they pursue charges. I am referring to the ability of the police to decide whether or not to arrest someone who has killed another person. A judge decides that, not a cop. Just ask Gunsmith about that.

Ah. So, by that logic, every time a cop has even the most remote idea someone has broken the law, then they damn well better arrest that person?
When it comes to situations such as the Martin case, there is a reason that they take them downtown, instead of just 'let them go' on the spot.
They call the DA's and advise them of what they have, and then the DA determines whether they want to press charges and arrest said person, or let them go, but with the caveat that they will have to stick around.
Cops don't just let you go at the scene of a shooting.

[Major Lima Charlie]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Corporal Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Corporal Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ah. Time to disarm the population once again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

Evidently, bad guys are to be protected. Isn't it amazing how they're saying if you're a law abiding citizen, we're damn sure NOT going to allow you to protect yourself from some poor, defenseless criminal?
Rather than, as they should, passing harsher sentencing against those that perpetuate crimes, including gun crime, but no. They'd rather say 'we're going to tell states to ******** the second amendment, and threaten to punish any state that dares let their citizens protect themselves!!

My issue with Florida's stand your ground law is that it gives a police officer judicial authority and I cannot support legislation which tramples the separation of powers. If they fixed that and made some of the language clearer (especially regarding what constitutes a reasonable threat), I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

As it stands, it's largely a blank check for people with twitchy trigger fingers and/or vindictive personality types. Should the law be scrapped? Depends upon how difficult it is to change it. If it proves to be impossible to change, scrap it and come up with a better law. Rather that than all the dithering about.

That's a crock of s**t. The cops don't determine whether or not charges are pressed. All they do is gather evidence and send it to the DA, who then determines whether or not to pursue charges. To even attempt to say the cops determine this is wildly inaccurate.

I did not say that they pursue charges. I am referring to the ability of the police to decide whether or not to arrest someone who has killed another person. A judge decides that, not a cop. Just ask Gunsmith about that.

Ah. So, by that logic, every time a cop has even the most remote idea someone has broken the law, then they damn well better arrest that person?
When it comes to situations such as the Martin case, there is a reason that they take them downtown, instead of just 'let them go' on the spot.
They call the DA's and advise them of what they have, and then the DA determines whether they want to press charges and arrest said person, or let them go, but with the caveat that they will have to stick around.
Cops don't just let you go at the scene of a shooting.

By that logic, any time a firearm is discharged and a person is injured, the person who discharged the weapon should be arrested. That's how it's done everywhere else (just ask Kitten).

Of course he was taken downtown. He wasn't arrested, though, which is odd since that's SOP for practically everywhere else.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Corporal Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Corporal Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Corporal Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ah. Time to disarm the population once again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

Evidently, bad guys are to be protected. Isn't it amazing how they're saying if you're a law abiding citizen, we're damn sure NOT going to allow you to protect yourself from some poor, defenseless criminal?
Rather than, as they should, passing harsher sentencing against those that perpetuate crimes, including gun crime, but no. They'd rather say 'we're going to tell states to ******** the second amendment, and threaten to punish any state that dares let their citizens protect themselves!!

My issue with Florida's stand your ground law is that it gives a police officer judicial authority and I cannot support legislation which tramples the separation of powers. If they fixed that and made some of the language clearer (especially regarding what constitutes a reasonable threat), I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

As it stands, it's largely a blank check for people with twitchy trigger fingers and/or vindictive personality types. Should the law be scrapped? Depends upon how difficult it is to change it. If it proves to be impossible to change, scrap it and come up with a better law. Rather that than all the dithering about.

That's a crock of s**t. The cops don't determine whether or not charges are pressed. All they do is gather evidence and send it to the DA, who then determines whether or not to pursue charges. To even attempt to say the cops determine this is wildly inaccurate.

I did not say that they pursue charges. I am referring to the ability of the police to decide whether or not to arrest someone who has killed another person. A judge decides that, not a cop. Just ask Gunsmith about that.

Ah. So, by that logic, every time a cop has even the most remote idea someone has broken the law, then they damn well better arrest that person?
When it comes to situations such as the Martin case, there is a reason that they take them downtown, instead of just 'let them go' on the spot.
They call the DA's and advise them of what they have, and then the DA determines whether they want to press charges and arrest said person, or let them go, but with the caveat that they will have to stick around.
Cops don't just let you go at the scene of a shooting.

By that logic, any time a firearm is discharged and a person is injured, the person who discharged the weapon should be arrested. That's how it's done everywhere else (just ask Kitten).

Of course he was taken downtown. He wasn't arrested, though, which is odd since that's SOP for practically everywhere else.

Actually, no, it's not SOP everywhere else. There are a lot of factors, most of which the police do NOT release to the media, in spite of their beliefs to the contrary. The police go door to door and find witnesses, and question them.
While one may be taken downtown, and may spend several hours there, it is more to insure that they stick to their story.
Each area is different, but I don't know one that releases someone on the spot.
They take them in, and question them on every instance.