The Right to Carry Fire Arms, Gun Laws and The self-defense and "stand your ground" laws.
Options
waterproof
Members Posts: 9,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
This always been a issue in The United States of America and i like to get your views on this subject.
I own a gun a 44 Magnum Desert Eagle, I have a license to carry a gun and working to obtain license to carry a conceled weapon (I have to go to Stanislaus County to obtain one). I own a fire arm to protect my family and I, My house and my clients (I lived in the Silicon Valley of the Bay Area where all the Big wig Tech companies at and Lawyers, CEO's, Politicians Pay big money for private protection).
and I am for Second Amendment, but every person should be held accountable for their actions. If a person kills another person and that person really didn't pose a risk or even have a weapon and i don't care if you are scared you should be persecuted for murder!!!!!!!.
These laws like the Sand your Ground laws needs to be looked at, review and re-written, Like the one if Flordia. Because that law damn nears give you the right to blow a hole in a person just for being shooked or think you are in danger.
I am all for carrying a gun in public, i think it should be lawful in everystate. But a person should go through a background check first. And if you ? a person, the person should have a drug test and alcohol test soon as possible.
what do the Social Lounge think about the guns laws and how it effect our communites
I own a gun a 44 Magnum Desert Eagle, I have a license to carry a gun and working to obtain license to carry a conceled weapon (I have to go to Stanislaus County to obtain one). I own a fire arm to protect my family and I, My house and my clients (I lived in the Silicon Valley of the Bay Area where all the Big wig Tech companies at and Lawyers, CEO's, Politicians Pay big money for private protection).
and I am for Second Amendment, but every person should be held accountable for their actions. If a person kills another person and that person really didn't pose a risk or even have a weapon and i don't care if you are scared you should be persecuted for murder!!!!!!!.
These laws like the Sand your Ground laws needs to be looked at, review and re-written, Like the one if Flordia. Because that law damn nears give you the right to blow a hole in a person just for being shooked or think you are in danger.
I am all for carrying a gun in public, i think it should be lawful in everystate. But a person should go through a background check first. And if you ? a person, the person should have a drug test and alcohol test soon as possible.
what do the Social Lounge think about the guns laws and how it effect our communites
Comments
-
i agree with everything you said.... it all boils down to accountability. I been sayin i was gonna get my permit for years, i havent done so for no good reason, i ve had the paper work filled out just never brought it to the station. im also for certain restrictions.. no silencers, magazine capacity limits. im 50/50 on automatic weapons.. there should be some form of training and testing to be able to purchase firearms.. You should have to pass some form of test every year or every couple of years.. etc.
-
BK Product wrote: »i agree with everything you said.... it all boils down to accountability. I been sayin i was gonna get my permit for years, i havent done so for no good reason, i ve had the paper work filled out just never brought it to the station. im also for certain restrictions.. no silencers, magazine capacity limits. im 50/50 on automatic weapons.. there should be some form of training and testing to be able to purchase firearms.. You should have to pass some form of test every year or every couple of years.. etc.
CO-SIGN 100% and I agree, there needs to be certain restrictions. Yo i swear I was a Gold's Gym working out and this dude came up to me and ask do i play professional football or a body guard (because of my size) and i told him the type of work i do and he said ohhhh you have a gun, i told him what type of fire arm i have and he asked what shooting range i go to and i told him This guy took out his I phone and showed me his gun and it was a AR-15!!!!! and he was shooting it.
I'm thinking what in the hell a person needs a AR-15 for, the fire power shown of the weapon just from a camera shot was incredible, his family own some property between Modesto and sac town and he asked me do i want to go up there to shoot.
I was like HELL NO!! he look like one of those milita's white guy, and he know his stuff and was hunter because he from the valley and my folks from the central valley around merced county/fresno county so i know about the hunting spots, but what in the hell a person needs that type of fire power.
Now granted i own a Desert Eagle and i get those you crazy looks but an AR-15.
AND YES a test should be given every few years like we do with drivers license -
...i suspect you may have wasted your money, sir. especially if this is your only firearm.waterproof wrote:I own a gun a 44 Magnum Desert Eagle
which is not really the point of those laws, of course.waterproof wrote:These laws like the Sand your Ground laws needs to be looked at, review and re-written, Like the one if Flordia. Because that law damn nears give you the right to blow a hole in a person just for being shooked or think you are in danger.
i think the only states where you don't have to pass a background check to get a concealed carry permit are ones that do not require any permit; i don't know if you include open carry in this.waterproof wrote:I am all for carrying a gun in public, i think it should be lawful in everystate. But a person should go through a background check first. And if you ? a person, the person should have a drug test and alcohol test soon as possible.
a pointless restriction, especially when you consider that silencers --which are already heavily regulated, mind you-- are beneficial for hunters/target shooters who would like to reduce damage to their ears.BK Product wrote: »im also for certain restrictions.. no silencers-
a pointless restriction we've already tried and seen have no effect, especially when you consider that several states already have their own laws on this score.BK Product wrote: »--magazine capacity limits--
and this is where i must ask, "please tell me what you think the current laws regarding automatic weapons are?"BK Product wrote: »im 50/50 on automatic weapons
personally, i've never found an AR-15 to have such an impressive amount of firepower, especially when you consider there's plenty of rifles, some semi-automatic, that fire more potent rounds... such as just about any hunting rifle.waterproof wrote: »I'm thinking what in the hell a person needs a AR-15 for, the fire power shown of the weapon just from a camera shot was incredible, his family own some property between Modesto and sac town and he asked me do i want to go up there to shoot.
between an AR-15 and a Desert Eagle, the latter should get the crazy looks... but maybe not for the reason you're thinking.waterproof wrote: »Now granted i own a Desert Eagle and i get those you crazy looks but an AR-15. -
@janklow, money is well spent I buy Guns that I am comfortable with. the first gun i shot was my grandfather gun it was either a 43 magnum or a 357 classic with ivory handle a old ass gun that he carried i think it was a 43 that was made in the 50's. So i been around Magnums all my life, Family members own 44's 357's. I love the feel of the handle of my Desert Eagle, and im looking to buy the 50 magnum DE or a beretta m93r
-
its over: 2012! wrote: »Just think...you can ? Black males in America, now. As long as you had no witnesses there, to discount your claim for why you killed him...the police will not charge you. Just...Make sure you're either in AZ TX FL KY WA GA or one of the other states, notorious for shytting on Black males
Now, as opposed to when, I ask. This has always been ok. Also, guns should be treated like the "nuclear option". Before you use a gun you should try every reason not to use it. Obviously there will be situations where you have to use it, but the case of Trayvon is obviously not one of them. -
its over: 2012! wrote: »Just think...you can ? Black males in America, now. As long as you had no witnesses there, to discount your claim for why you killed him...the police will not charge you. Just...Make sure you're either in AZ TX FL KY WA GA or one of the other states, notorious for having far reaching and undescriptive laws
fixed for accuracy.
and to answer the thread. Yes I believe in gun ownership. I just wish more black people went the legal route and taught their sons and daughter how to handle a gun correctly. Take a child to hunt and he will respect that weapon forever.
-
Lots of people own ARs. I'm all for silencers though.
-
okay, let me pause here to give you a disclaimer: buy whatever guns you want, i don't REALLY care. i assure you that i have firearms that will, at the least, not be ideal for self-defense or hunting, at least compared to something else i own. and if you're comfortable with it for what you're using it for --let's say home protection and/or self-defense-- while i will totally argue with your choice, ? it, it's what you want to use.waterproof wrote: »@janklow, money is well spent I buy Guns that I am comfortable with.
that said, here we go:
okay, it wasn't a .43 Magnum as that's not a legit caliber, and it almost certain wasn't a .44 Magnum, since that wasn't really a production round until the mid-1950s. so we're probably talking a .357 Magnum, which is not my personal choice for home-defense, but which is PROBABLY a better selection, if we're talking about a revolver, for a few reasons.waterproof wrote: »the first gun i shot was my grandfather gun it was either a 43 magnum or a 357 classic with ivory handle a old ass gun that he carried i think it was a 43 that was made in the 50's.
me too, on both these counts. if you think this is going to be some kind of "what do you need a Magnum-caliber handgun for," i don't know what to tell you.waterproof wrote: »So i been around Magnums all my life, Family members own 44's 357's.
can't argue with this, since it's solely a matter of personal preference, but...waterproof wrote: »I love the feel of the handle of my Desert Eagle--
you're not really.waterproof wrote: »-and im looking to buy the 50 magnum DE or a beretta m93r
the Desert Eagle you're talking about is .50 AE, not .50 Magnum (or .500 Magnum, if you want to be ? -retentive), and it's going to prove to be more expensive and less reliable than what you already have. but see the disclaimer.
the Beretta 93R you're talking about... well, okay, my understanding is that there's MAYBE a couple on the registry, MAYBE a couple of 92s with auto-sears, and MAYBE a couple of faux-93Rs built from Taurus... but with the way the registry works, you're talking about something that's either a) essentially impossible for the average gun to buy and b) something that's not suited for what you're talking about. IF any of them are on the registry.
...unless you're talking about some federal felony bait in terms of a straight-up illegal select-fire pistol, in which case, i advise you not to commit a felony.
-
I love my saiga sporter 7.62x39 hi cap hunting rifle...
-
I refuse to talk about gun laws in the federal context
I feel like it water downs the conversation and gives liberals a bad name -
no need to get testy. You gave your thoughts that i am wasting money, i give my opinion that my money is well spent, i buy guns that i am comfortable with, you could said i respect that and kept it movin or give your opinion with details on why as a gun owner you feel that i better off with another fire arm, i didnt ask if you cared but you cared enough to give your thoughts that i wasted my money.
No 43 is not a legit caliber im going off my dome, what i meant to say 44.magnum again it was in the 80's when i shot my grandfather gun i am going off memory from damn near 20 plus years ago and naming guns that have a simliar look, so yeah it was a 357 and it was a beauty.
50 caliber ae is also know as 50 magnum
-
Soloman the Wise wrote: »I love my saiga sporter 7.62x39 hi cap hunting rifle...
@solomanthewise what type of game you hunt, and what you think about gun laws that target high power hunting rifles -
uh... i'm NOT getting testy, although this does explain the "feelings" tag now. i care about guns, so i'm posting.waterproof wrote: »no need to get testy.
okay, here's the thing: I DID BOTH OF THESE THINGS. i prefaced that post with the "while i will totally argue with your choice, ? it, it's what you want to use" disclaimer (as well as noting the comfort issue a second time) AND my argument is based on "why a .44 Magnum and/or a Desert Eagle is not a great choice for what you describe." feelings indeed!waterproof wrote: »You gave your thoughts that i am wasting money, i give my opinion that my money is well spent, i buy guns that i am comfortable with, you could said i respect that and kept it movin or give your opinion with details on why as a gun owner you feel that i better off with another fire arm
sorry that i give a ? about guns, man
no, this is not correct.waterproof wrote: »50 caliber ae is also know as 50 magnum
the Desert Eagle of which you speak is chambered in .50 AE, short for .50 Action Express. a few other handguns are also chambered in it, but it's the round the .50 caliber DE is famous for.
.500 S&W Magnum, however, is an entirely different round, made so S&W could sell those Model 500s. you're not going to find a Desert Eagle chambered for it; it's NOT interchangeable with the .50 AE (for example, the .500 Magnum's casing is around a quarter of an inch longer.
they're fine, but i have mixed feelings about anything that isn't strictly interchangeable with other generic AK clones. it seems like a teaseSoloman the Wise wrote: »I love my saiga sporter 7.62x39 hi cap hunting rifle...
-
uh... i'm NOT getting testy, although this does explain the "feelings" tag now. i care about guns, so i'm posting.waterproof wrote: »no need to get testy.
okay, here's the thing: I DID BOTH OF THESE THINGS. i prefaced that post with the "while i will totally argue with your choice, ? it, it's what you want to use" disclaimer (as well as noting the comfort issue a second time) AND my argument is based on "why a .44 Magnum and/or a Desert Eagle is not a great choice for what you describe." feelings indeed!waterproof wrote: »You gave your thoughts that i am wasting money, i give my opinion that my money is well spent, i buy guns that i am comfortable with, you could said i respect that and kept it movin or give your opinion with details on why as a gun owner you feel that i better off with another fire arm
sorry that i give a ? about guns, man
no, this is not correct.waterproof wrote: »50 caliber ae is also know as 50 magnum
the Desert Eagle of which you speak is chambered in .50 AE, short for .50 Action Express. a few other handguns are also chambered in it, but it's the round the .50 caliber DE is famous for.
.500 S&W Magnum, however, is an entirely different round, made so S&W could sell those Model 500s. you're not going to find a Desert Eagle chambered for it; it's NOT interchangeable with the .50 AE (for example, the .500 Magnum's casing is around a quarter of an inch longer.
they're fine, but i have mixed feelings about anything that isn't strictly interchangeable with other generic AK clones. it seems like a teaseSoloman the Wise wrote: »I love my saiga sporter 7.62x39 hi cap hunting rifle...
I bpought mine in the 90's during the ban before it elapsed under Bush so I got what I got but I have other pre/after ban models I just love the feel of my sporter it is very comfortable and reactive. That said Waterproof come on fam some of the things you are perpetuating worry me. You have got to get your facts right the ignorance and lack of excercising our rights is what has ? our people for generations now the right to bare arms and intricate knowledge of firearms for non illicit purposes isdesperately needed in our community... -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »
uh... i'm NOT getting testy, although this does explain the "feelings" tag now. i care about guns, so i'm posting.waterproof wrote: »no need to get testy.
okay, here's the thing: I DID BOTH OF THESE THINGS. i prefaced that post with the "while i will totally argue with your choice, ? it, it's what you want to use" disclaimer (as well as noting the comfort issue a second time) AND my argument is based on "why a .44 Magnum and/or a Desert Eagle is not a great choice for what you describe." feelings indeed!waterproof wrote: »You gave your thoughts that i am wasting money, i give my opinion that my money is well spent, i buy guns that i am comfortable with, you could said i respect that and kept it movin or give your opinion with details on why as a gun owner you feel that i better off with another fire arm
sorry that i give a ? about guns, man
no, this is not correct.waterproof wrote: »50 caliber ae is also know as 50 magnum
the Desert Eagle of which you speak is chambered in .50 AE, short for .50 Action Express. a few other handguns are also chambered in it, but it's the round the .50 caliber DE is famous for.
.500 S&W Magnum, however, is an entirely different round, made so S&W could sell those Model 500s. you're not going to find a Desert Eagle chambered for it; it's NOT interchangeable with the .50 AE (for example, the .500 Magnum's casing is around a quarter of an inch longer.
they're fine, but i have mixed feelings about anything that isn't strictly interchangeable with other generic AK clones. it seems like a teaseSoloman the Wise wrote: »I love my saiga sporter 7.62x39 hi cap hunting rifle...
I bpought mine in the 90's during the ban before it elapsed under Bush so I got what I got but I have other pre/after ban models I just love the feel of my sporter it is very comfortable and reactive. That said Waterproof come on fam some of the things you are perpetuating worry me. You have got to get your facts right the ignorance and lack of excercising our rights is what has ? our people for generations now the right to bare arms and intricate knowledge of firearms for non illicit purposes isdesperately needed in our community...
what the things i say worry's you?? That's the basis of this thread and what i am saying on part is ignorance of the fire arms that harm our community more than anything.
If you read my first post I am a defender of the right to bear arms, that's in my blood. My father is from the deep south in the 50's LA when you was killed for the color of your skin when you have to look at the ground when you walk pass a white person from the very place where THE DEACONS OF DEFENSE was teaching and excersing the right to bear arms and police the neighboorhoods arming people, that influence him and the BPP
moved to the central valley when as a youth he owned a 30-06 rifle and used to walk the streets with it going hunting and it was the norm, and my grandfather walked around with pistol ? was like the wild wild west then, what i am saying i grew up around guns and was taught to respect the gun, yourself and other people life, my father started me off with a 35 pistol
I excercise all my rights, but i am not for fuckery, if you got a gun you is not responsible then you do not deserve it, you know how many ? unclean, not oiled guns in our community that killing people and even the shooter. you know how many brothers own a gun and not register the gun and leaving their family for 5-10 years. That' how our community is being effected.
If you a gun collector and a hunter or a regular citzen i don't care what you own but know why you own it, learn about it. And there is millions of unstable people having guns so yes i am for test's. -
i don't know of anyone with a Saiga AK clone that's disappointed with the rifle; for me, it's more that i like them with a less restricted market of parts. but i think unless you want to spend a lot (too much) on an AK-style rifle, you're going to be satisfied with a Saiga as much as anything else. and again, you like yours, which is what matters the mostSoloman the Wise wrote: »I bpought mine in the 90's during the ban before it elapsed under Bush so I got what I got but I have other pre/after ban models I just love the feel of my sporter it is very comfortable and reactive.
ironic note: my AR-15 was a during-the-ban rifle i bought AFTER the ban because i got a deal on it... and now i've spent my time/money on replacing those neutered parts. so what i'm saying is all of us make weird firearm decisions sometimes
no, no, he's nowhere near the worst example of perpetuating crazy firearm stuffSoloman the Wise wrote: »That said Waterproof come on fam some of the things you are perpetuating worry me. You have got to get your facts right the ignorance and lack of excercising our rights is what has ? our people for generations now the right to bare arms and intricate knowledge of firearms for non illicit purposes isdesperately needed in our community...
yeah, but what tests are we talking about?waterproof wrote: »If you a gun collector and a hunter or a regular citzen i don't care what you own but know why you own it, learn about it. And there is millions of unstable people having guns so yes i am for test's. -
I agree people should be able to do anything to protect their family from danger. Especially in their own homes. Carrying in public I am not so sure because people get mad and can't think straight. If there are no laws stopping them, they will just shoot anyone who makes them slightly angry.
-
seems to me like the majority of these people also don't care very much about laws that tell them they can't carry in public...Carrying in public I am not so sure because people get mad and can't think straight. If there are no laws stopping them, they will just shoot anyone who makes them slightly angry.
-
The way I feel about it is this,
The 2nd Amendment acknowledges that a person has the right to bear and carry arms. Which means that a license or permit to carry is unnecessary and unconstitutional. Having an inalienable right means that a citizen does not have to ask for permission from the state to exercise it. Nor can a state pass legislation inconsistent with the constitution, which means statutes requiring registration, or permits are null and void, and according to judicial decision any law that is unconstitutional is not bound to be adhered to nor enforced it is the same as if it were never written.
Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF)is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.
Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
As it pertains to Stand your ground law and other similar matters, a person can still be held criminally liable for unlawfully shooting another person.
For instance in the Zimmerman case, a citizen cannot pursue and engage another citizen and call it self defense. In fact the citizen has every right to defend themselves for being followed and basically threatened by a person of unknown intentions.
It's why police have to identify themselves as such before engaging someone.
-
PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »The way I feel about it is this,
The 2nd Amendment acknowledges that a person has the right to bear and carry arms. Which means that a license or permit to carry is unnecessary and unconstitutional. Having an inalienable right means that a citizen does not have to ask for permission from the state to exercise it. Nor can a state pass legislation inconsistent with the constitution, which means statutes requiring registration, or permits are null and void, and according to judicial decision any law that is unconstitutional is not bound to be adhered to nor enforced it is the same as if it were never written.
Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF)is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.
Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
As it pertains to Stand your ground law and other similar matters, a person can still be held criminally liable for unlawfully shooting another person.
For instance in the Zimmerman case, a citizen cannot pursue and engage another citizen and call it self defense. In fact the citizen has every right to defend themselves for being followed and basically threatened by a person of unknown intentions.
It's why police have to identify themselves as such before engaging someone.
100% cosign...
Question though under that premise can citzens commit acts that cause them to lose citizenship and said constitutional rights??? -
You can't lose citizenship. It's an inalienable right meaning the state can't take it away. Due Process. The only way for a state to prohibit a citizen from expressing that right is to charge them with a crime try them and convince a jury to find them guilty. That citizen is prohibited from exercising that particular right while they are a prisoner of the state.
