People go to work, out for an evening on the town, shopping, etc. I'd like to think they have a right to self-defense if they're at these places doing nothing harmful to anyone.

Chasing people down to play vigilante? Provoking a confrontation? Yeah, I'd be against those as well but those few instances don't negate the legitimate need for legal protection/recognition to those people genuinely defending their safety and others.

you also loose your life savings defending yourself criminally and civilly.

In Texas you can not be sued in civil court if you are no billed by a Grand Jury, found innocent or not guilty in a criminal trial.

A law that needs to in place in all states (and DC)!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

"Walking down to your neighbor and actiing like you are under threat and shooting him doesn't work."

Nor should it. However, no-one should be forced, by law, to give an actual criminal anything, anywhere.

paint job. Some folks get to claim SYG, while others don't get too.

You seem to be advocating shooting someone that steals something in the back to keep your stuff.

I'm all for the original post.

Then you need to get your eyes checked.

Holy. Shit.

"no-one should be forced, by law, to give an actual criminal anything, anywhere." I'm sure you didn't mean it the way it sounded.

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

without being criminally or civilly liable for doing so. If the criminal decides to respond to my refusal with violence, then self-defense can come into play. Simply put, no criminal demand should carry the weight of law.

That said, compliance is sometimes prudent, and an important tool in many circumstances. For instance, if a criminal wants cash or something petty, it's not cowardly to comply in order to avoid violence. If he wants you to get into a car or allow yourself to be restrained, it's extremely dangerous and foolish to comply. BUT, prudent or not, it should not be mandatory.

Quit playing Hoyt's game, you're no better at it than he is.

It's a problem with law enforcement, and one that I wholeheartedly acknowledge. Police discrimination is a problem we've been dealing with since long before SYG laws appeared. It's unacceptable, but duty-to-retreat never did anything to address it.

I think the most important about the SYG and CD laws is the civil immunity granted from the determination of legitimate self-defense. If the law determines that someone committed no crime, then why should they be held in what is essentially double jeopardy in a civil court (which has very low standards of proof).

I could probably live without the fact that SYG makes the shooter's claim of self defense the truth until proven otherwise. But overall I think that the laws are fine and this is no big detriment because before we had SYG/CD any shooting without a witness could simply be claimed "self defense" anyways... if the prosocutor bought your story then it didn't go to trial anyways. SYG just codifies this prosecutorial reasoning. So there was nothing stopping people from claiming "self defense" before we had SYG laws. In fact, in the whole Treyvon fiasco, zimmerman is not delcaring his defense to be under protection of SYG... he's merely pleading regular old self defense.

"I could probably live without the fact that SYG makes the shooter's claim of self defense the truth until proven otherwise."

I don't mind the presumption of innocence. It's absolutely necessary. I just don't think it is too much to ask that someone in a self defense shooting provide at least *some* corroberating evidence to their story. And in other situations, where you have circumstantial evidence that contradicts a self-defense story... SYG can basically throw that evidence out without further investigation because in and of itself it's not sufficient evidence to warrant a trail.

If I had to pick one way or the other, I would keep SYG as-is with the solid presumption of innocence. I was just saying that I feel the immunity is a much more critical part of the law.

I hope everyone who straps on a gun in the morning considers the possibility that they may not be coming home tonight, if they decide to use that gun.

they will go to jail and spend their home equity, savings, and kids college fund defending themselves criminally and civilly.

What kind of libertarian Utopia do you aspire to?

a standard of innocent until proven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence...civil libertarian I am, and will always be, right along with a good many other Dems.

It's big and bulky and accurate. Probaby not the best rifle to hump aorund town... or even hunting the woods, for that matter. If I ever have to bug-out... I'm bringing the AK clone or MAC-11/9 SMG.

just a guess.

for some reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR18

etc. We live in a developed society and people should act like it.

http://citizensvoice.com/polopoly_fs/1.1264440.1327889027!/image/2563182605.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_240/2563182605.jpg







?w=468&h=352

?w=500&h=530

One sees all sorts of anti-social, self-aggrandizing behavior in public.

So far the biggest gathering of as some put it "gun nuts" is a teabagger party where 20 60+ something idiots show up...

It's not reflective of society in general so it shouldn't really be a concern...


Middle of the road common thought man here


Next!

Neither is "cowboy". I don't know how you define a basement arsenal, but I imagine some of my favorite uncles have more than you'd be comfortable with. I didn't see anything in any of the photos you posted that suggests any kind of bigotry, except for your own. All I see coming from you is bigotry, arrogance and a vast ignorance regarding other people's way of life.

To answer your question; I guess sticking strictly with your definitions as I've been able to garner them from your posts, my answer is yes. I'm perfectly fine with that.

But if any of them had intended to shoot someone coming across the border, they had plenty of opportunities. Yet the only shooting I ever heard of them doing was with a camera.

I never said everyone who likes guns is a fine citizen. There are some real freaks and dangerous monsters who do. As for the surge in firearms sales after Obama's election, yes, almost all of the people buying them were perfectly normal, trustworthy, law-abiding citizens who haven't done anything dangerous with those guns since buying them. The NRA is an organization with a great history, whose leadership is sadly radically right-wing, and an organization that does great work as well as terrible work.

I don't know what kinds of ideas the vast majority of pro-gunners have. I know the ideas the pro-gunners here on DU have, and the ideas of those I know personally. I agree with some and disagree with others. You haven't presented anything that compels me that my friends, peers and the majority of the United States population are not trustworthy to carry firearms, pretty much wherever and whenever they choose. You've shown me lots of pictures of overweight white men with combat gear and guns. I know you're trying to express your disdain for this type of person, but I don't share it, so it really isn't effective.

...in regard to the question of wing-nut extremist militia groups promoting gun love.

Even in the African-American community - the violence advocated by the Black Panthers was thoroughly rejected, which is why the message of peace and anti-militarism of Martin Luther King. Jr. was so widely rejected. Whatever your purpose in posting that image in this thread, it was a poor one.

Ditto racism etc. So I don't know why you're lecturing me while giving Hoyt a free pass.

...the run-of-the-mill shoot the burglars on the lawn is pretty thoroughly accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

white, racist, anti-government militias?

Secondly, can you show me an anti-government militia type who isn't thoroughly immersed in the gun culture/nuttiness? I don't think you can.

That's patently absurd and false.

Nor is it a basis for granting Hoyt the policy agenda he would impose (in opposition to the Constitution, no less). The number of armed radicals is minute compared to the number of people who simply wish to protect themselves or enjoy legitimate sports. Some people abuse free speech -- with racist intent, no less -- but that should in no way impugn the proper enjoyment of that right for every else.

And part and parcel of extremist politics...

"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."

Why are so many opposed to "regulation" when it is clearly the basis of the entire proposition?

I'll tell you why, they're deluded about the intent and words of the Founding Fathers in this regard because to them it means that they get to have whatever weapon they went wherever they want with little or no meaningful qualification for possession. That's just fucking nuts and it's all too prevalent in this "pro-2A" canard cooked up by a bunch of quacks.

or why you seem intent on obfuscating in favor of it.

MLK's message was accepted.

There is an analogy however. What the BPs were to civil rights is what the RW militias are to gun owners.

Comparing grapes with oranges, and pineapples with watermelons.

You believe most gun owners are arming for a battle against the government?
I was pointing out the BPs were a extreme fringe of the civil rights movement as the militias are an extreme fringe if the 2A rights movement.

Or was I wrong and you meant MLK's message was rejected?

...supports laws that enable the reckless arming of anti-government militias and other violent types.



This the mainstream politics of the gun culture:

the Truth according to Hoyt.

And he won't let anyone sway him from the truth.

I have yet to see any of these pictures of his with a Romney button on them or an "I hate Obama" sticker on their gear. Hell, they could be solid Dem voters, he has no way of knowing. To him anyone with a gun must be a GOP/NRA shill wing nut.

I haven't ever seen him provide any support that his cut and paste pictures are right wingers, have any of you?

He'd have a real problem at the ranges I go to. Lots of people that are different colors there, very confusing to people like Hoyt.

He obviously just hates people that don't look like him, spend their time the way he does or think the way he demands everyone else think. Pretty intolerant for DU.

There's a word for people like that, but very few of them are allowed to stay on DU, just down here in the Gungeon where I guess he can call people any names he wants.

I am also quite suspicious of people who buy a lot of guns, certain types of guns, and any requirements that might tie them to a gun.

But, the minute they lay down their guns, I will hug them.

You tolerate everybody, except of course anyone who doesn't agree with you on firearm ownership.

That's the point - sailing way over your head.

1. Have you ever considered purchasing a gun?
2. Have you ever purchased a gun?
3. Have you ever considered purchasing ammunition?
4. Have you ever purchased ammunition?
5. Have you ever fired a gun?
6. Have you ever obtained a carry permit for a gun?
7. Have you ever owned more than ten cartridges at one time?
8. Have you ever felt that you couldn't enjoy yourself with ten or fewer cartridges?

If you answer "YES" to any of these questions, you are a severe gun abuser. You are also an unconvicted criminal and should immediately report to Judge Harry Stone.

"Well, I don't tolerate criminals, particularly those who abuse with a gun (whether convicted)."

I couldn't agree with you more. I won't stand for people committing crimes with guns. I won't stand for people using guns to harm innocent people. But for the rest of this sub-thread(and generally for the rest of the time I've been reading your posts), you've been ranting against people who carry guns in public without harming anyone. Why are you so firmly against civilians carrying weapons when it is so very rare for these people to do any harm? There are other ways that you could prevent violent crime. There are things that would have the support of almost everyone here. I want to help keep people safe, while protecting personal freedom.

That would be assault.

I bet he doesn't want to hug them.

Of course ... we don't know if he has a weight issue either. It could be a case of projection.

And we know he can't ride his bike for exercise anymore, because he uses the front wheel as a weapon when he confronts concealed carriers and demands to see their papers while he holds them for the local police.

Are you okay with all the laws regulating firearms as they are?


remember, I'm right in the middle representing most of society-

background check on a person buying a handgun from a licensed dealer, it should be the same for a private sale. A few years ago I bought a handgun at a garage sale, legally and with no questions asked. Just think what cities would be like if anyone could go into a gun store like Walmart and do the same.

Several states allow private sales with no background check and it doesn't seem to be that much of an issue.

Why is that?

Honest question.

Doesn't appear to be scouring the Denver Post or The Gazette to purchase their weapons. Private sales don't appear to be providing a large percentage of firearms to criminals

Right now NCIS is only available to licensed dealers.

Diversity is lacking.

People of color also own guns. How come Hoyt only portays whites as crazed gun owners?

Wimmins like to plink and shoot too.

Of course there are plenty of pictures of gun owners that are Hispanic, African American, Native American or that represent pretty much any other group in the US.

But if he used pictures of gun owners of color, women or both, like Otis McDonald, Rhonda Ezell etc. and made the same rude, condescending remarks he makes about overweight white people, he'd be long gone from DU. There's a double standard and we all know it.

He gets away with it only because he carefully chooses only those pictures for maximum offensiveness and to cover his ass.

The good folks who brought us gun control in the first place!

Gun control is never written to apply for everyone, and never has been. From the very beginning, it's been written to create a privileged class and an unprivileged class. They can be (have been, and are,) divided up by race, religion, wealth, political status, ZIP code, etc.

called the Maryland Tenth Cavalry Gun Club

There are many, many gun owners of every description and background, and essentially none telling them they're not allowed on account of their skin color. Shooting sports are being discovered by more and more people every day, and I enjoy doing my bit by volunteering at town fairs. I particularly enjoy teaching immigrants from Central and South American about their rights, and helping them to exercise them. As for the dearth of photos, it seems to me like white people disproportionately adore uploading pictures of themselves, especially when they look ridiculous.


Looking up "black gun owners" and "black bike riders" gave me about the same lackluster results.

The Tea Party people are a political bunch, not gun-related. Same with your odd assertion that guns = Republicans. As for "going to NRA," I've been to their HQ in Fairfax (if that's what you mean by "go to NRA&quot and it's fairly diverse as well. Shooting sports are a primarily white activity, I'll admit that in a heartbeat, but the demographics vary tremendously from place to place. It's really easy to find pictures of white gun owners in a majority-white country with mostly majority-white states and majority-white municipalities. Nothing incriminating about that, unless you want to assert that Islam is racist because it don't meet your diversity requirements.

The "gun culture" you stereotype looks very little like your fevered ramblings and cherry-picked media photos, once you step outside your own doors.

Would love to see photos of people carrying that you think represents carriers. Please, not a bunch of photos of Winter Olympics.

But I'll see what I can do. The ones here are often on the County Fairgrounds. This would be public property, and I have no problem with photography there.

Picture 1 seems to be a shoulder rig for field use while hunting
Picture 2 not that different from a group getting ready for paintball. I doubt that is their daily dress. Maybe they are the parade clowns?
Picture 3, the guy on the right bothers me. I see very little retention capability with his holster placement and strap
Picture 4 has spent too much time watching the Schwarzenegger marathon. heat stroke will shortly remove him from the gene pool
Picture 5 looks to be the interior of a gun shop. The text indicates it may be a personal collection, but my German is pretty weak. In any case it appears to be mostly pre-1960's weapons and I believe personal collections are not against any law.


So if the 'yahoos' wish to parade, let them. It creates a teaching moment for the kids.

Maybe they need the guns. They obviously can't run very fast.

You have no pictures of slender gun-toters... is there some bias showing through?

If there's one thing I respect about your position, it's your devotion to it; you find a way to mold any statement into a supporting argument for your side. While that's often frustrating to someone who expects you to see the light when presented with actual facts, it also makes for some entertainment, and even - from time to time - awe at the laser-like way you maintain your focus on your message.


Don't change.

may have involved a claim of self defense and stand your ground but was rejected by the jury. Rightfully so.

The law was designed to be used in cases where an innocent person was in a place he had a right to be, was not engaged in criminal activity and was attacked or faced imminent attack from an individual who intended to inflict serous injury or to kill and had the ability to do so. A reasonable man standing in the shoes of the person using this defense should agree that his actions were appropriate under the circumstances.

The law was never intended to allow a person to start a fight and then say that he feared for his life and had to use lethal force.

Obviously the laws were poorly written as occasions have happened when the legal system allowed a person who was undoubtedly guilty of murder or manslaughter to walk free. This fact will lead to an attempt to reword the law in states like Florida in order to any remove confusion or antiquities.

I would go further then better regulating gun shows as you suggest. I would require an NICS background check for the private sale of any firearm.

I disagree with the laws currently on the books for the regulation of firearms in some states but I also feel that as long as the laws do not forbid honest citizens the right to own firearms and do not impose fees that would discourage an average citizen from owning such weapons, each state should be allowed to have its own regulations.

I personally like the firearm regulations in Florida where I live and find them fair and reasonable.

...the source of the drama in the group stems from a small but vocal cadre of DU'ers who feel that this group should be deleted from DU or at least moderated to a point that anyone who's opinion differs from their extremist flavor of gun-control advocacy can be branded a "RW troll" and banned immediately. They are usually disruptive, insulting, technically incompetent, and deliberately misrepresent posts to effect their abuse of the jury system. They don't mind making this little part of DU suck because they feel this group's existence makes DU as a whole suck.

it is tiresome and I would rather shut this place down so that they won't have it to whine about anymore. How else can we get rid of these trolls?

...as with iverglas, they'll be dealt with given enough time. They seem to have gotten the message a little bit after their last attempt failed to garner the general support of DU they thought it would....

lost me.

Lots of whining and not much else on his part. Seemed to even bug those that don't even post in this group as well.

"Let them whine, let them complain, let them make DU suck..."

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Skinner said so himself when he PPR'd her. And I quote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=100133&sub=trans

You, ellisonz, Hoyt, safeinohio, DanTex, bongbong, and a few others contribute little here other than constant complaints and gripes. And that's the least of it. As for this "not being the place", I suggest you look up page....

I have to give ST, safeinohio, and even DanTex more credit than that. Although, pseudo academia is kind of old but...
One question I have is, isn't Starboard Track kind of an oxymoron or ironic on a Democratic site? I'm not a sailor, but starboard is the right side facing the bow of a boat or cockpit of a plane.

odd choice....and bad puns aside ...I agree that those are more worthy adversaries than some others on here.

Do you have any suggestions (besides this sensible, pragmatic thread) on how to defuse the drama?

I've noticed that if you look through the threads it's the same few people arguing the same few points over and over and over again. It gets kind of boring kind of quick that's why I hope the scope of this forum does get expanded it would be nice to have someplace to talk about guns with out all the right wing bullshit you hear on other gun forums

I have a lower that's wanting to be a plinker for the whole family to enjoy from my 7yo son, to my 10yo daughter, the wife and I.

My daughter thinks the 556 is too loud and she won't shoot it that often. My son loves to shoot the AR's too much, and my wife bought her own AR so she wouldn't have to share.


AnYwaY that's for another thread.

9mm versus .45 auto.

The poster doesn't own firearms, has had no reason to defend himself and has not purchased a firearm at a gun show. This reads like all of the garbage being spewed out from the media. The post is intended to create MORE drama from nothing.

About four years ago an ex-asshole from my wife wouldn't leave our house/property but did so after he saw a POS 22 I had laying in the garage..

Juding by the content of your post, you are a tool (see how easy that was )