Probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Printable View
Probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Did the newspaper also report that despite the charges and subsequent plea he was allowed to keep his concealed carry permit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
You said "Somehow him pulling a gun on someone whilst he was intoxicated is not enough to revoke his CCW" , despite the law being very clear.
No, the newspaper did not say that. The "somehow" was likely a plea deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Very interesting links to read, Bae. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
So, the applicable statute does not require a conviction, but rather just an arrest or charge in order to kick in the requirement that a valid concealed carry weapon permit be revoked. I'm curious to know if his CCW was revoked as the law requires or is there an assumption not based in fact in the story as presented?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
I'm asking these questions because I've discovered that we really have to be careful with things we read on the internet. An example being that in the latest school shooting, some news reports, and even one of our members, reported that the shooter used a shotgun, a pistol and an AR15 rifle when there was in fact no AR15 used. I understand the need people have to advance a narrative, I'm trying to understand yours.
The newspaper said he was charged with "weapons while intoxicated."Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
only does the influence of American culture/news really stop at the physical borders, I mean the whole world hears of this news. But the shootings don't seem to travel much beyond U.S. borders.Quote:
Very interesting links to read, Bae. Thanks.
That's because of the gun control laws that many other countries have. People don't have access to AR-15's.
What's the practical difference between an AR-15 and the following semi-automatic rifles available in Canada without restrictions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
https://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...ty-600x152.jpghttps://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...3/06/FG542.jpg
https://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...or-700x230.jpghttps://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...de-600x190.jpg
https://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...de-600x172.jpghttps://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...le-700x200.jpg
https://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...02-700x284.jpghttps://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...-1-700x195.jpg
https://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...CR-700x154.jpghttps://www.huntinggearguy.com/wp-co...14-700x159.jpg
Frustratingly, though some of the nicer ones of those are for sale at great prices in a gunstore in Canada just a few miles from my house, I am not allowed to buy one and bring it home, because the one I want is made with parts from some country the USA is grumpy with. So instead of $400 Canadian (which is what, $37 US?), I have to pay $2400 for the nearly-identical item, made with all-US parts....Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Bae, the exchange rate is bad but not that bad. Try US$310.;) Could not resist. But remember, you are making America great again:devil:
One of the things I want is a lovely bolt-action rifle from Australia. Unfortunately it has a stock made of hardwood from A Country The USA Hates, and it is prohibited to import weapons parts from Such Naughty Countries. Foolish rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by razz
Also, sometimes that store has great prices on ammunition. Unfortunately, about 96 pages of forms have to be filled out and an import permit issued before I can bring it back into the USA, which takes about 6 months. Regulations are so much fun.
Another school shooting today:(
Yes, the Noblesville IN incident today was at least the 21st school shooting in 2018. The youth with 2 handguns shot a female student. He was tackled by a science teacher, who he shot three times.
Ain't that America?
Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, wrote an op-ed piece for USA Today.
He argues that US schools lack security measures of any consequence, and a good example of school security is Israel.
He states that in Israel every school with 100 or more students has at least one well-armed and highly trained guard at the entrance. The initial training is rigorous -- only 6 in 10 applicants are able to meet the required standards. There is also an ongoing retraining cycle which requires requalification every 4 months.
School staff and students are trained and drilled on how to respond to a threat.
The schools in the USA should be hardened as targets by:
Reducing the number of entrances, so that each entrance can be guarded.
Installing metal detectors (similar to those that are used in courthouses and government buildings).
Upgrading classroom doors, so that each room can be barricaded from within.
Paxton does not see the usefulness of gun control in response to the problem of gun violence in schools.
His argument does not address the legal responsibility of parents for the criminal behavior of their children using firearms that were legally owned by those parents (maybe not locked in a gun safe), or gifted to their children.
WE will either turn our schools into prisons like Israel or we will have gun control like many European countries and Australia. Who is even going to want to work in schools anymore or send their kids there?
What does gun control look like to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
US gun control without repeal of the Second Amendment would realistically involve "common sensical" restrictions, such as background checks on firearm buyers, red-flag court-ordered surrender of firearms to law enforcement, bans on ownership of "assault weapons", etc. The US is fairly unique among nations in maintaining a constitutional right to bear arms.
Thinking outside the box, if the American electorate were sufficiently riled up by gun violence to repeal the Second Amendment, then hypothetically gun control in the US (11.96 Total Firearm Related Annual Death Rate per 100,000 Population) could look more like Canada (2.05), Israel (2.09), Australia (2.4), or Switzerland (3.01).
In Israel firearms licenses are distributed to residents, agencies, and organizations by the Ministry of Public Security. "Firearms should only be issued if there is a personal or public need, as decided by the authorities, and only to one who adheres to the necessary requirements and has completed the appropriate training." All applicants are interviewed at the firearms licensing bureau. All applicants must complete training at a shooting range. Licenses are granted for a limited term. License holders must renew their license before it expires.
What is "common sensical" about banning "assault weapons"?Quote:
Originally Posted by dado potato
So do some of you think that if your own government/military decides to turn on it's people that the guns you keep at home are really going to protect you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." ~Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788
I think this is the point. A people can never be free if their government restrains their natural right to self defense. The fact that their odds aren't stellar if the government turns against them doesn't change the nature, or importance, of their liberty. You may feel free to abdicate yours but I think it's the height of arrogance to expect me to abdicate mine.
While I would agree that it's a noble idea that people should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government I think Teacher Terry's questions still stands. We've seen in Philadelphia in the 80's and Waco a decade later what level the government will go to when they decide that people need to be taken down. Is there actually any real chance of the people of the US winning an armed conflict against our government?
What form do you see this "conflict" taking?
It would be a handgun against a tank. Who are we kidding.
I think you do not i derstand potential tyranny of local government, police, and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tammy
They would just bomb us with drones.
When black people in Oakland tried to stand up to the tyranny of their local police back in the 60's the laws regarding what guns could be owned and where they could be taken by their owners got changed. Quickly. The potential tyranny is real but if people somehow think they're going to win that fight I'd say they are foolish. If need be the local police will simply drop bombs and burn down dozens of houses to get their desired result:Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/u...ladelphia.html
I was just going to go there--what if people rose up against rogue police who seemingly can kill random blacks with impunity? How would that be met? Armed protest wouldn't stand a chance against an increasingly militarized police force. Who are we kidding...Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Ramona Africa, the sole adult occupant of the bombed house in Philadelphia who got out alive, was arrested and went to prison until about 1992.
Her first speech after her release from prison can be seen at the linked website, headed 1992
http://onamove.com/ramona-africa
At that time (26 years ago) she said she was still a "true revolutionary" … "Revolution don't have to be violent." … Pressure (such as fear of riot) is why the system appeases inmates, and minorities generally.
Incidentally last night MSNBC aired a townhall on "Everyday Racism in America" in Philadelphia, at the Prince Theater. In the discussion, I noted an observation that "white discomfort" (or fear of street crime) can readily result in a call for police to attend. Police response can quickly escalate to overwhelming or even lethal force.
Maybe there is a parallel with fears of gun violence in schools. Do we/they "call the cops" to deal with school bullying? Do we/they, like Israel, decide to hire private security contractors to provide armed guards at the entrances to schools?
I would prefer that we handle it like Australia and other civilized countries do. We can prevent more kids from dying if we have the courage.
Australia first introduced gun controls in order to limit their availability to the criminal classes imported from England, the Aborigines and poachers, while strengthening the government's monopoly on violence, and of course excluding the gentry. All proper statists seem to love the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
England and other european countries?
Same principles, all going back hundreds of years. The United States was the first country to, in theory, break the trend of complete government control over the masses. Of course this was highly selective even here as it was soon decided that certain classes such as Native and African Americans could not legally own the means of protecting themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
What's interesting to me is to see how some things never change, and the sheer volume of people who do not see the parallels.
from The Testing-Tree
In a murderous time
the heart breaks and breaks
and lives by breaking.
It is necessary to let go
through dark and deeper dark
and not to turn.
-- Stanley Kunitz (1905-2006)
Might be a bit different...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tammy
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
History records that didn't work so well for the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto--it just forestalled the inevitable.
Given the choice of dying as part of an organized resistance or as a helpless slave at Treblinka, I think they made the right choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Dying is inevitable under any circumstances. Isn’t fighting back, however long the odds, preferable to passive submission? What would you have done in that situation? Convene a restorative justice commission?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I suppose dying quickly is preferable to long miserable death by forced labor and starvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL