Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-23-2013, 08:08 AM #64
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
All reasons to limit gun ownership are short sighted and childish. Argument over, who wants pancakes?
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 01:55 AM #65
$h@key J0nEZ
Southern By The
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Grace Of GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsbalr120 View Post

Careful now or you'll have all the libtards in here trying to ban any dogs that carry more than ten teeth.
__________________

The moths & atheists are doubly divine & dying” - Jim Morrison
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 08:27 AM #66
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
All reasons to limit gun ownership are short sighted and childish. Argument over, who wants pancakes?
Unfortunately, so are pro-gun as seen above (as well as the millions of adaptions to this bull**** like hands & feet, cars, and all the other twisted statistics). This really has been one of the worst arguments we have had around here.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 08:45 AM #67
Space Pope
 
 
Space Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
It is because people are ****ing dishonest. They would rather support their position with cherry-picked "facts" then understand what the **** is going on and make a reasonable assessment. It is about winning the argument and being "right", not knowing **** all about anything.
Space Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:16 AM #68
vikingshadow
SCHWING!
 
vikingshadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Downtown
Annual Supporting Member
vikingshadow is a Moderator
 has been a member for 10 years
vikingshadow supports Team VICIOUS
vikingshadow supports Team VICIOUS
vikingshadow supports our troops
What I feel it boils down to is this. Do we want to have the government messing with, either in large part or even small part, with the amendments that are ours by right? The simple fact that the feds are discussing it at all means they are tampering with the base of this particular amendment, which in turn and in time will allow them to tamper with ANY amendment. It doesn't matter if people agree with the amendment at all because that's their right to disagree. However, those that disagree can not and should not be allowed to tamper with anything in that amendment as it's a right, not a privilege, for gun owners - the wording, the meaning, whatever.

It's your call (Americans). Allow them (government) to take away your rights one piece or even a speck at a time, but don't complain when you wake up one morning without any freedoms at all.
__________________

I'm selling all my paintball stuff! Look here! My Baby! Phantom Pump
vikingshadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:55 AM #69
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by vikingshadow View Post
What I feel it boils down to is this. Do we want to have the government messing with, either in large part or even small part, with the amendments that are ours by right? The simple fact that the feds are discussing it at all means they are tampering with the base of this particular amendment, which in turn and in time will allow them to tamper with ANY amendment. It doesn't matter if people agree with the amendment at all because that's their right to disagree. However, those that disagree can not and should not be allowed to tamper with anything in that amendment as it's a right, not a privilege, for gun owners - the wording, the meaning, whatever.

It's your call (Americans). Allow them (government) to take away your rights one piece or even a speck at a time, but don't complain when you wake up one morning without any freedoms at all.
It isn't us versus them. It's us and us. It is easy to shuffle the burden of responsibility off of your shoulders and onto another, in your case, the entity known as the federal government. The reality is, this entity becomes more omnipotent, proportional to the amount you believe it is its own entity, self aware and self sustaining. You do this by believing that the government is not a composite of american citizens.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 05:21 PM #70
Eric the Fish
 
 
Eric the Fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
You really don't know anything about firearms, do you?
You need to pass a proficency test to drive a car so why not to own a gun? I have seen pin heads at a range near by my town use a 45 with the action filed down so it is essentially became full auto and the idiot put two into the ceiling before he let go of the trigger. I was at a machine gun contest my nephew dragged me to in Wisconsin a few weeks back .There were a few very good marksmen that could keep a full burst on target with a tight grouping. Most however were lousy. So no I'm not ignorant about firearms, I've been around firearms probably longer than you've been alive. Just because its a right to bear arms doesn't mean everybody should be able to own one. You might think thats illogical but think about some of the dumb f**ks you've run across in your life and think of them in a crisis situation with a semiauto rifle.
Eric the Fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 05:57 PM #71
Bloodeagle
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Fish View Post
You need to pass a proficency test to drive a car so why not to own a gun?
Driving a car is not a constitutional right. For the sake of this discussion, assume voting is. Can congress enact legislation requiring the equivalent of a proficiency test in order to vote?
Bloodeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 06:09 PM #72
tsbalr120
Goooonsberry
 
tsbalr120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cowbutt, AR
tsbalr120 is an NCPA player
tsbalr120 is Legendary
Quote:
“If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun. Have the shells for a 12-gauge shotgun, and I promise you as I told my wife, we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill if there’s ever problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever’s coming in is not going. You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim; it’s harder to use. And in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”

— Vice President Biden, remarks on a Facebook Town Hall, Feb. 19, 2013

“Great advice, Joe. Not only would that be illegal, but then a woman would face an attacker with an empty shotgun. For tips on safe and responsible gun ownership, ask the NRA, not Joe Biden.”

— Voiceover of a new National Rifle Association video mocking Biden’s remarks

The vice president’s comments on Facebook, intended to rebut the notion that assault weapons are necessary, have been widely mocked — see this Conan O’Brien spoof suggesting he also encouraged people to buy cocaine — but we wondered about the NRA’s assertion that his advice would actually be illegal.

The Facts

We assume Biden is not talking about the vice president’s residence at the Naval Observatory — where of course he also has Secret Service protection — but his home in Wilmington, Del. As it happens, there are a number of Delaware codes that would suggest Biden’s advice could land someone in legal trouble.

Here are some of the examples provided by NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, drawing on quotes from attorneys in an article in U.S. News & World Report — “ Joe Biden’s Shotgun Advice Could Land Jill Biden in Jail” — and the NRA’s own legal analysis.

■Aggravated menacing, which occurs “when by displaying what appears to be a deadly weapon that person intentionally places another person in fear of imminent physical injury.” (11 Del. Code 602)

■Reckless endangering in the first degree, which occurs “when the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death to another person.” (11 Del. Code 604)

■Reckless endangering in the second degree, which occurs when a “person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of physical injury to another person.” (11 Del. Code 603)

■Violation of the hunting “safety zone” law. One provision of that law prohibits discharging a firearm “so that a shot, slug or bullet lands upon any occupied dwelling, house, or residence, or any barn, stable or other building used in connection therewith.” (7 Del. Code 723, which unlike other provisions in that section, isn’t limited to conduct while hunting.)

A person might claim self-defense (although the NRA says there don’t seem to be any reported cases of that under these provisions), but Arulanandam said Delaware follows the common rule that force must be proportional: “In repelling or resisting an assault no more force may be used than is necessary for the purpose, and if the person attacked does use in his defense more force than is necessary he, himself, becomes the aggressor.” [State v. Robinson, 36 A.2d 27, 28 (Del. 1944)].

Arulanandam said Delaware is even more restrictive on force in defense of property. The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:

“The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either:

a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant; or

b. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed the use of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the defendant’s presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury. (11 Del. Code 466)

One part of the NRA’s argument is not quite right, however. Arulanandam also cited a Wilmington City code that prohibits discharging a firearm “in any nonpublic place, if such discharge results in a projectile entering into, over or upon a public place.” (Wilmington City Code 36-162, page 29.) But though the Bidens’ home has a Wilmington zip code (19807), it lies just outside the city limits, so that particular law would not apply.

Still, on the face of it, the NRA’s case seems fairly strong. However, State Prosecutor Kathleen Jennings, who heads the Delaware Justice Department’s Criminal Division, disagreed. “In Delaware, a person can legally fire a weapon to protect themselves and others from someone intruding onto her dwelling,” she said in an interview.
Jennings pointed to several parts of the Delaware criminal code relating to defending the use of force (including the 11 Del. Code 466 cited by the NRA) to back up her statement. In particular, she mentioned:

■“The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion…. The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.” (11 Del. Code 464)

■The use of force is justified against an intruder unlawfully in your dwelling (home), even if it results in death or injury if “the encounter between the occupant and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the occupant to act instantly; or the occupant reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the occupant or others in the dwelling; or the occupant demanded that the intruder disarm or surrender, and the intruder refused to do so.” (11 Del. Code 469)
Jennings said that Delaware laws allow for a fairly “subjective test” of self-defense, particularly in the case of a woman alone at night who believes she faces imminent danger in her dwelling. “A person is justified in using force if she believes it is necessary for self-protection,” she said, but she added that “clearly you can’t just fire a gun if you are not in a self-protection scenario.”

Jennings would have the final decision on whether to bring a case, so her interpretation of the law has some authority.

One caveat, of course. Who does Jennings work for? Beau Biden, the vice president’s son. He appointed her to her current job in 2011, though she notes that she was a prosecutor for 16 years and a criminal defense lawyer for 16 years.

Indeed, Arulanandam disputed Jennings’s citations. He said 11 Del. Code 464 concerns situations not similar to what Biden “vaguely described, which sounded more like a potential burglary at most,” whereas 11 Del. Code 469 involved a much more dangerous showdown.

“Vice President Biden described a situation that hadn’t gotten nearly to that point yet — no killing or injury, and no sudden encounter, circumstances leading to apprehension of injury, or verbal challenge to the intruder that would justify killing or injuring the intruder in any event,” he said.

An aide to the vice president offered this explanation for his remarks:

“The Vice President’s comments were made in the response to a question about whether a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines will prevent law-abiding citizens from using a firearm in self-defense. Consistent with the premise of that question, the Vice President’s comments presupposed a situation in which self-defense was at stake. The point of his example was that access to assault weapons is not necessary for self-defense.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...70da_blog.html
__________________
|NCPA: Razorbacks|
rip120
tsbalr120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 06:47 PM #73
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
I think we all can agree that that was an incredibly stupid thing for Biden to say.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 09:44 PM #74
Drex17
Valar Morghulis
 
Drex17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ilium, NY
Drex17 is one of the top 25 posters on PbNation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Fish View Post
Well I really blew it on this one. Posted this on another thread. Sorry for the idiocy. By the way I think do gun ownership is protected by the second amendment, however I don't think it should apply to every weapon especially to weapons that can kill a multitude of people in a short while. Also guns that are inherently inaccurate when fired multiple times should need a special permit for purchase. (By the way that is how most of the innocent get killed in Chicago with some gang banger firing off a clip and shooting up everything except their intended target). Make it more difficult for straw purchasers to load up on semi autos . Here is the article I meant. Was surprised to see it. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/op...a-can-too.html
So you are essentially calling for permits on all semi automatic weapons?
__________________
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
Drex17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 06:47 AM #75
Tuff
Supports 2nd Amendment
 
Tuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Tuff is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...e conomy.html

Joe Biden feels we're not worried about the economy or something.
__________________
IrishMafia
Proud American
Tuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:49 AM #76
Tuff
Supports 2nd Amendment
 
Tuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Tuff is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/man-fol...-gets-arrested

Apparently listening to the Vice President is an arrestable offense. Vice President should be the one who gets arrested. And some of you people support this man. Amazing.
__________________
IrishMafia
Proud American
Tuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:21 AM #77
justicexd
mowing faces since '83
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Fish View Post
You need to pass a proficency test to drive a car so why not to own a gun? I have seen pin heads at a range near by my town use a 45 with the action filed down so it is essentially became full auto and the idiot put two into the ceiling before he let go of the trigger. I was at a machine gun contest my nephew dragged me to in Wisconsin a few weeks back .There were a few very good marksmen that could keep a full burst on target with a tight grouping. Most however were lousy. So no I'm not ignorant about firearms, I've been around firearms probably longer than you've been alive. Just because its a right to bear arms doesn't mean everybody should be able to own one. You might think thats illogical but think about some of the dumb f**ks you've run across in your life and think of them in a crisis situation with a semiauto rifle.
You don't need to take a proficiency test to drive on private property. You also don't need to take a proficiency test to buy a motor vehicle. Also, without the proper license, modifying a firearm to shoot full auto is a felony that could land you in federal prison for 10 years.
justicexd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:32 AM #78
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by justicexd View Post
You don't need to take a proficiency test to drive on private property.
So, you would support legislation that requires proficiency tests to shoot outside of private property (as a vehicle only needs a license to drive outside of private property?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justicexd View Post
You also don't need to take a proficiency test to buy a motor vehicle.
And would you support only needing a proficiency test to shoot a fire arm, but not to buy one?
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:08 PM #79
Blake360
 
 
Blake360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Socal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuff View Post
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/man-fol...-gets-arrested

Apparently listening to the Vice President is an arrestable offense. Vice President should be the one who gets arrested. And some of you people support this man. Amazing.


Joe Biden:

Quote:
I said, "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door." Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that's true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, "Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me." No one's arguing we should make machine guns legal.
Blake360 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:38 PM #80
Drex17
Valar Morghulis
 
Drex17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ilium, NY
Drex17 is one of the top 25 posters on PbNation
Biden is taking it to a whole new level, aside from him twice now suggesting higly irresponsible and potentially illegal actions, he keeps pushing the bull**** idea that "assault weapons" are hard to use.
__________________
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
Drex17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:40 PM #81
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Unfortunately, so are pro-gun as seen above (as well as the millions of adaptions to this bull**** like hands & feet, cars, and all the other twisted statistics). This really has been one of the worst arguments we have had around here.
How about some pancakes then? They solve everything.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:41 PM #82
Blake360
 
 
Blake360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Socal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drex17 View Post
Biden is taking it to a whole new level, aside from him twice now suggesting higly irresponsible and potentially illegal actions, he keeps pushing the bull**** idea that "assault weapons" are hard to use.

Apparently they're hard to use when protecting yourself but easy to use when randomly shooting people at a school.
Blake360 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:44 PM #83
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
How about some pancakes then? They solve everything.
I wouldn't object.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:09 PM #84
justicexd
mowing faces since '83
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
So, you would support legislation that requires proficiency tests to shoot outside of private property (as a vehicle only needs a license to drive outside of private property?
No.. The only one's discharging firearms outside of private property are criminals. Law abiding citizens don't use firearms while walking, or driving down the street.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
And would you support only needing a proficiency test to shoot a fire arm, but not to buy one?
No.. You don't need a proficiency test to use four wheelers, boat, snow machines, or bicycles, so why would we need one for firearms.

Let me ask you this... Before you install a swimming pool in your backyard, should you, and everybody else who uses the pool, be required to take a swimming test to prove you know how to swim?
justicexd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump