Good argument for gun control

[PoliticalNick]

Breaking someone's leg seems a bit of a stretch...non?

Notably absent is the term "deadly force." The general rule in all common-law countries is that deadly force is permitted only when you are in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. And shooting a firearm is always deadly force.

If the person won't stop then I can escalate to whatever force is required to make them stop including a broken leg or a bullet to the kneecap or even deadly force. I read this section as that as long as I have a legal claim to the property I may defend it wit as much force is required to protect it. That is how it should be. I can't start by using deadly force but if the person(s) won't cease & desist I certainly can escalate to that.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

If the person won't stop then I can escalate to whatever force is required to make them stop including a broken leg or a bullet to the kneecap or even deadly force. I read this section as that as long as I have a legal claim to the property I may defend it wit as much force is required to protect it. That is how it should be. I can't start by using deadly force but if the person(s) won't cease & desist I certainly can escalate to that.

I hope you're never in such a situation. Because you'd be amazed at how little stock a court will put into how you read the statute.

 

[DaSleeper]

If the person won't stop then I can escalate to whatever force is required to make them stop including a broken leg or a bullet to the kneecap or even deadly force. I read this section as that as long as I have a legal claim to the property I may defend it wit as much force is required to protect it. That is how it should be. I can't start by using deadly force but if the person(s) won't cease & desist I certainly can escalate to that.

I had a neighbour like you once......he moved after a year:lol:

 

[Colpy]

If the person won't stop then I can escalate to whatever force is required to make them stop including a broken leg or a bullet to the kneecap or even deadly force. I read this section as that as long as I have a legal claim to the property I may defend it wit as much force is required to protect it. That is how it should be. I can't start by using deadly force but if the person(s) won't cease & desist I certainly can escalate to that.

That depends on how far they escalate it........

You MUST be in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm before you use deadly force......and if you use a firearm, you had better have a REAL good explanation of why and how you happened to be in possession of a loaded weapon on your person.

Good luck with that.

And, if you have reason to shoot, shoot centre mass. If you don't have reason to shoot centre mass, you do not have reason to shoot at all.

 

[EagleSmack]

Just look at our brave boys dressed in camo red, givin the rebs hell................more fodder looking on just WAITING for their turn to charge uphill against a dug in enemy.

Too rich.

A little background on the pic...

That is Day 1 of the Revolution. It depicts the march back to Lexington from Concord between the Minutemen and the British. No dug in positions. It was a running battle the whole way and the Regulars did not fare so well that day. In fact the Regulars took a beating and if not for the relief column from Boston the initial expedition would have been bagged back on the Lexington Green.

So they weren't waiting for their turn to charge up hill. The pic depicts the Regulars Light Infantry skirmishing and keeping the swarming minutemen back from the main column of retreating Regulars along what is known as Battle Road.

Now that's rich! Whoop!

 

[karrie]

That depends on how far they escalate it........

You MUST be in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm before you use deadly force......and if you use a firearm, you had better have a REAL good explanation of why and how you happened to be in possession of a loaded weapon on your person.

Good luck with that.

And, if you have reason to shoot, shoot centre mass. If you don't have reason to shoot centre mass, you do not have reason to shoot at all.

But if you shoot for centre mass you lower the risk of stray bullets flying into the neighbours' yards over your all important bbq. Where's the fun in that?

Shoot for small targets, keep the neighbours on their toes and the criminals on alert!

 

[PoliticalNick]

That depends on how far they escalate it........

You MUST be in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm before you use deadly force......and if you use a firearm, you had better have a REAL good explanation of why and how you happened to be in possession of a loaded weapon on your person.

Good luck with that.

And, if you have reason to shoot, shoot centre mass. If you don't have reason to shoot centre mass, you do not have reason to shoot at all.

The explanation is really simple.....I keep my H&K in my nightstand with a full mag beside it. Takes about 3 seconds to grab it, load it and be ready to fire. Makes no sense to have something for self-protection that is locked away and takes 5 minutes to get all the pieces unlocked and together and ready. By that time it is waaaayyyy too late.....in the case of a violent home invasion you would be dead and I'm not taking that risk.

I understand the theory of aiming at center mass but that could easily lead to death, in fact with my .44 it is quite likely. Plugging them in the thigh or the foot dies the job without the risk of having to fight a murder charge, which is a joke anyway if someone is committing a crime against you.

But if you shoot for centre mass you lower the risk of stray bullets flying into the neighbours' yards over your all important bbq. Where's the fun in that?

Shoot for small targets, keep the neighbours on their toes and the criminals on alert!

LOL, aiming at the knee or foot means a miss hits the ground, not your neighbors gazeebo.

 

[The Old Medic]

Yup! The Japanese during WWII chose not to attack the western coast because several of the Jap brass attended univesity in California and knew that citizens were armed to the teeth. Same for Alaska and BC at the time.

That is 100% false. It is based on a SUPPOSED statement by Admiral Yamamoto, made after the end of the war.

The only problem with this is that Admiral Yamamoto was killed in 1943, by US Army Air Force pilots that shot down his plane, killing everyone aboard.

No Japanese official ever said anything even remotely like this. In actual fact, Japan had absolutely no desire to go to war with the USA. They knew that they could not win such a war. Instead, they planned to totally destroy the Pacific fleet, and then work out a peace deal with the USA.

Admiral Yamamoto argued against this, telling the Japanese military that nothing would raise the anger of the US more than a "sneak attack".

Not ONE of the leaders of Japan before, or during, World War II had ever attended College/University in California, or anywhere else in the USA. Admiral Yamamoto had been the Military Attache, at the Japanese Embassy before World War II, and he had traveled extensively around the USA.

If you are going to argue either side of the "Gun Control" issue, it helps a LOT if you have your facts correct.

 

[DaSleeper]

Something tells me that in Edson, AB there is a strong wind blowing over a bovine ranch all the time.......maybe even hurricane strength by some of the posts in this forum

 

[CDNBear]

Nope.

Hmmm, I was sure that was the cause of your idiotic and irrational statements.

Good argument for gun control.

And a stay in a psych ward.

Precisely what I have written before about the right of people to protect themselves from that fascist piece of fưcked up shίt Arpaio in Arizona. It is the role of the government to protect and serve, not to tyrannize - the right to keep and bear and to use arms was intended to insure that this role would be met. Strangely, many so called principled conservatives fail to realize that.

A bylaw officer simply doing his job, isn't anywhere near what you're babbling about.

Thanks for that link JB. It would appear that section 39 says I can defend my property from those pesky bylaw officers by force even if they have some legal claim to it.

So it kind of looks like you're off base Bear when you claim I am in the wrong for forcibly removing a bylaw officer from my land and, if necessary, giving them a case of high velocity lead poisoning in the process of protecting what is mine.

Not even remotely.

If you were ever a LEO, you would never make such idiotic claims.

Breaking someone's leg seems a bit of a stretch...non?

Break? He's talking about shooting them!

If the person won't stop then I can escalate to whatever force is required to make them stop including a broken leg or a bullet to the kneecap or even deadly force.

I can't start by using deadly force but if the person(s) won't cease & desist I certainly can escalate to that..

I'm starting to think you're retarded.

That depends on how far they escalate it........

Something any LEO would know.

You MUST be in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm before you use deadly force......and if you use a firearm, you had better have a REAL good explanation of why and how you happened to be in possession of a loaded weapon on your person.

Something any LEO would know.

Good luck with that.

he doesn't need luck, he needs help.

And, if you have reason to shoot, shoot centre mass. If you don't have reason to shoot centre mass, you do not have reason to shoot at all.

Again, something any LEO would already know.

The explanation is really simple.....I keep my H&K in my nightstand with a full mag beside it. Takes about 3 seconds to grab it, load it and be ready to fire. Makes no sense to have something for self-protection that is locked away and takes 5 minutes to get all the pieces unlocked and together and ready. By that time it is waaaayyyy too late.....in the case of a violent home invasion you would be dead and I'm not taking that risk.

I understand the theory of aiming at center mass but that could easily lead to death, in fact with my .44 it is quite likely. Plugging them in the thigh or the foot dies the job without the risk of having to fight a murder charge, which is a joke anyway if someone is committing a crime against you.

LOL, aiming at the knee or foot means a miss hits the ground, not your neighbors gazeebo.

You're an idiot and a liar.

Something tells me that in Edson, AB there is a strong wind blowing over a bovine ranch all the time.......maybe even hurricane strength by some of the posts in this forum

An absolutely astute observation.

 

[gopher]

CdnBear,

Originally Posted by gopher

Precisely what I have written before about the right of people to protect themselves from that fascist piece of fưcked up shίt Arpaio in Arizona. It is the role of the government to protect and serve, not to tyrannize - the right to keep and bear and to use arms was intended to insure that this role would be met. Strangely, many so called principled conservatives fail to realize that.
​

A bylaw officer simply doing his job, isn't anywhere near what you're babbling about.

Horseshìt. The state of Arizona has had to fork over $50 million for his crimes against innocents and half of the cases haven't been settled yet. Do your homework and get your facts straight.

 

[CDNBear]

Horseshìt. The state of Arizona has had to fork over $50 million for his crimes against innocents and half of the cases haven't been settled yet. Do your homework and get your facts straight.

Although I appreciate your use of a disclaimer, you're still babbling.

Maybe you should just take a moment, go back and read what was written, and get back to, if that is at all possible.

 

[DaSleeper]

Most of those that are suing Arpaio are crooked lawyers and judges that were charged with corruption......see...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/polit...aio-lawsuits-settlements-maricopa-county.html

No wonder our resident rodent is in a tizzy..........could it be birds of a feather???????:lol:

 

[gopher]

Most of those that are suing Arpaio are crooked lawyers and judges that were charged with corruption......see...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/polit...aio-lawsuits-settlements-maricopa-county.html

No wonder our resident rodent is in a tizzy..........could it be birds of a feather???????:lol:

And they won their cases where Arpaio was tried by a jury of his Republican peers.

Thanks for making my point yet again.

Takes someone really fὖcked up beyond words to defend him so it's no great surprise that our resident Canucklehead wannabees do so. But I bet if that piece of shît killed one of your children in his jails you'd be only to happy to get awarded a good sum of money by those juries.

 

[Walter]

And they won their cases where Arpaio was tried by a jury of his Republican peers.

Thanks for making my point yet again.

Takes someone really fὖcked up beyond words to defend him so it's no great surprise that our resident Canucklehead wannabees do so. But I bet if that piece of shît killed one of your children in his jails you'd be only to happy to get awarded a good sum of money by those juries.

How many have died in Arpaio's jails?

 

[CDNBear]

And they won their cases where Arpaio was tried by a jury of his Republican peers.

Thanks for making my point yet again.

Takes someone really fὖcked up beyond words to defend him so it's no great surprise that our resident Canucklehead wannabees do so. But I bet if that piece of shît killed one of your children in his jails you'd be only to happy to get awarded a good sum of money by those juries.

 

[gopher]

How many have died in Arpaio's jails?

I have already posted a link. Click on search button.

When right wingers defend a baby killer like him it proves that they do not stand for principle or any moral value. It affirms everything their opponents say about them so that it is no secret as to why they keep losing elections and why CPAC's recent meeting will prove to be a bigger disaster than the RNC convention.

 

[tay]

Utah gun lobbyist has AR-15 rifle stolen from car



Clark Aposhian heads his state's biggest gun lobby, the Utah Shooting Sports Council.

Aposhian is a true believer in the right to bear arms, including the AR-15 assault rifle. He even believes in the right of a gunowner to leave an AR-15 unattended in his car overnight.

And that's how Aposhian woke up Thursday morning to find his personal arsenal one shy.

In his defence, Aposhian noted the weapon was unloaded and stored in a secure box which, presumably, his visitors also took. Yeah and the buggers also snagged his car stereo. The nerve.

And, in case you're wondering, yes, that is Clark Aposhian with an AR-15-style assault rifle which he may or may not still possess.


Utah gun lobbyist has AR-15 rifle stolen from car

 

[DaSleeper]

Cottonwood Heights Police say the AR-15 rifle belonging to Clark Aposhian was stolen late Wednesday or early Thursday from a locked car parked in the driveway of his home.
Sgt. Scott Peck says someone broke into the vehicle sometime during the night, stealing the car stereo along with the weapon.
Aposhian, who is chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, says the gun was unloaded and stored in a secure box.

Now somehow according to you.....Are you saying that It's the owner's fault if someone robs him??????

 

[CDNBear]

I have already posted a link. Click on search button.

When right wingers defend a baby killer like him it proves that they do not stand for principle or any moral value. It affirms everything their opponents say about them so that it is no secret as to why they keep losing elections and why CPAC's recent meeting will prove to be a bigger disaster than the RNC convention.

The only defense that was offered to Arpaio was when you posted lies about who was on his volunteer deputy team.

Which only goes to prove everything your opponents say about you.