Hunting season is always open on liberals.

Quote from: admin on November 27, 2010, 07:05:04 PM
Great article SS, but in the future can you keep them down to the most pertinent paragraph, otherwise we are breaking copyright laws by posting too much.
The site that carries the story makes money off people clicking their site, if we steal their traffic, we are liable.
Don't want to give husein any excuses. ;)

My apologies. I will sumarize any further articles dealing with subjects I post and just supply a link for others to follow.

So, we got past the basic opinions regarding the NRA position on the second amendment. IMO, the government and the anti-gun critters should butt out. We have the Constitutional right to bear arms (the libs think it's about sleeveless shirts). I've been carrying for years and have never had a problem. The one thing that is necessary for all states to enact is a "Castle Doctrine Law". The anti-gunners and the legal profession (ambulance chasers) are loudly objecting to such a law being passed. A recent Castle Doctrine Bill in Pennsylvania made it through the legislature only to be vetoed by the left lib sleaze governor from Philadelphia ................. Fast Eddie Rendell. The bill will be reintroduced next year and will pass because Pennsylvania will have a Republican governor.

Do you currently have a Castle Doctrine Law in your state, or are you to be treated like a criminal if you defend yourself and your family with the use of lethal force?

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 28, 2010, 08:52:37 PM
So, we got past the basic opinions regarding the NRA position on the second amendment. IMO, the government and the anti-gun critters should butt out. We have the Constitutional right to bear arms (the libs think it's about sleeveless shirts). I've been carrying for years and have never had a problem. The one thing that is necessary for all states to enact is a "Castle Doctrine Law". The anti-gunners and the legal profession (ambulance chasers) are loudly objecting to such a law being passed. A recent Castle Doctrine Bill in Pennsylvania made it through the legislature only to be vetoed by the left lib sleaze governor from Philadelphia ................. Fast Eddie Rendell. The bill will be reintroduced next year and will pass because Pennsylvania will have a Republican governor.

Do you currently have a Castle Doctrine Law in your state, or are you to be treated like a criminal if you defend yourself and your family with the use of lethal force?

Washington has no 'duty to retreat', as precedent was set in State v. Studd (1999) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003) when the court found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."

But, the law is ambiguous. WA does not have an explicit 'Castle Doctrine', but like many of the other laws pertaining to gun ownership, they are based on rights of the gun owner and revolve around what the state expects is common sense and best judgment of the user. When you apply for a CPL (Concealed Pistol License), you will see some language that states WA is a 'stand your ground' state; again this is ambiguous.


More

At our homestead we have a "make sure the intruder is inside our home, or within "dragging distance" of being inside our home, before we open fire" doctrine.   ;D :o

I think that so many times in the real world, things happen too fast to allow us to stop and think, "Um, let's see now, before I pull this trigger, am I within my legal rights, or should I be retreating...?"

I have a certain mindset about it. First of all, I don't pick up a gun unless I'm ready and willing to use it. Second, if you don't belong in/at/near my home and I think you may do me or mine harm, I will shoot you RTF now. Third, I do not shoot to wound.

Just my way of thinkin'...

Quote from: tbone0106 on November 29, 2010, 09:15:20 AM
I think that so many times in the real world, things happen too fast to allow us to stop and think, "Um, let's see now, before I pull this trigger, am I within my legal rights, or should I be retreating...?"

I have a certain mindset about it. First of all, I don't pick up a gun unless I'm ready and willing to use it. Second, if you don't belong in/at/near my home and I think you may do me or mine harm, I will shoot you RTF now. Third, I do not shoot to wound.

Just my way of thinkin'...

I always keep the Ruger P97 .45 ACP on the nightstand, and the 12 gauge pump is just inside the closet door.  Go ahead, make my day!   ;D

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 28, 2010, 08:36:10 PM
My apologies. I will sumarize any further articles dealing with subjects I post and just supply a link for others to follow.

Thank you sir, and I might add, that is the perfect way to do it, summarize.
There is no CR violation if someone summarizes, and posts a link, as opposed to posting parts of the article.

I hope my posts make sense, I only got 1 hour sleep last night, pulled a muscle in my back.... :'(

I hope it wasn't in the L4-L5 area.  :(

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 27, 2010, 06:12:42 PM
I'd like to read the opinions of those on this forum regarding the NRA challenging age limits for purchase and carrying of concealed firearms.

What's coming from the Brady Camp is to be expected. So realistically you can shelve any contentions they may have regarding what they consider to be a "gain" for the Second Amendment.
That said there's very little in the way of what would ostensibly be considered "Legitimate Objection" to 18-20 Year olds having the same rights, and for the same reasons, that older citizens have.
As my view of this argument is what I consider to be a "Non issue", in so much as the more attention that you give to it, the more opportunity you will give to the Left to convolute the premise with their semanitical expertise. Inadvertently giving it Power that it could not have substantiated on it's own.
While giving them an arena to perpetually create a litany of "nit picking" observations, laced with less than "common occurences", and saturated with a plethora of "manufactured statistics". Leaving anyone who enters the fray with an objective opinion, soon scratching their heads in frustration, disgust, and more than a grain of anger.
The Bottom Line as I see it is that simple, LEAVE IT ALONE, and you'll at the least reduce the possibility of force feeding their negativity with the negativity they provoke within you. Always with the possibility of it withering, and dying on the proverbial vine.

I bought my first gun with paper route money. I was 11 years old. It was a Sears 20-ga. single-shot break-open, and it cost me $30.04 with shipping and tax. I killed my first rabbit with it, and it gave me excellent service until I sold it years later.

NO youngster today can have that experience. It is now illegal in all 50 states for anyone under the age of 18 to own a firearm of any sort.

Like so many laws that seek to limit what we do, that one is just plain stupid.

So many of today's gun laws are reactionary responses to a single criminal act. The do-gooders see themselves as protectors of the populace. Unfortunately they respond out of ignorance and as such, overreact. The unfortunate part of this is the fact that responsible gun owners didn't pay attention to the actions of the reactionaries. This is why we are in the sorry state of gun regulations we have today. Had they been challenged at each and every attempt they made to restrict our second amendment rights, we wouldn't be discussing this now.  :)

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 30, 2010, 09:07:10 PM
So many of today's gun laws are reactionary responses to a single criminal act. The do-gooders see themselves as protectors of the populace. Unfortunately they respond out of ignorance and as such, overreact. The unfortunate part of this is the fact that responsible gun owners didn't pay attention to the actions of the reactionaries. This is why we are in the sorry state of gun regulations we have today. Had they been challenged at each and every attempt they made to restrict our second amendment rights, we wouldn't be discussing this now.  :)

Yep. The landmark Gun Control Act of 1968, which is still the core of federal-level gun control, was a knee-jerk reaction to the killings of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy that year. Still-open wounds from JFK's assassination contributed. (Lee Harvey Oswald used an Italian Carcano rifle he bought through the mail. GCA68 completely banned that sort of transaction.)

The true goals of the gun controllers are clear, though they try hard to hide them. No guns for anyone who is not a cop or a soldier. Ever. For any reason. Let nothing they say dissuade you from that absolute fact.

GCA68 required serial numbers on every new firearm. GCA68 required every sale to be conducted by a licensed dealer who kept records of every serial number. Later gun laws have used that database to do a lot of things, including finding and prosecuting alleged criminals. But what it's really all about is -- one day, your local sheriff or constable or deputy or cop will knock on your door, read a short passage from a legal document, and force you -- at gunpoint -- to surrender every firearm and every round of ammunition you own. THAT is what the "progressives" really want.

I sincerely hope that there are enough real Americans to keep that from ever happening.

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 30, 2010, 09:58:03 PM
I sincerely hope that there are enough real Americans to keep that from ever happening.

Look at the bright side.  Funeral homes will be VERY busy if that day ever comes, so it will be good for the economy.   ;)