Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You wouldn't need a CCW in your home. However, being in NLV, you might want to check hour CCW laws. Its the one ace in NV that CCW is not recognized. Its a "gun free zone", as it were. Covered that in one or two training session. Its a municipal reg. Not state or Clark county. A nod to CA by Vegas politicians. Vegas is the only municipality in the state with such a restriction.
Federal buildings, banks, casinos , state and county budings and NLV, are off limits to CCW.
I haven't been in NLV for a couple of years. They also overturned the municipal anti-CCW law there fairly recently, from what I read.
It was originally passed to be able to bust the bangers that moved to NLV back in the nineties when Cali passed their three strikes law. It was illegal to have a gun in a car to make busting those guys easier.
Being you DON'T see the point, there is no use trying to explain it to you any more.
You will NEVER get it!
Get what exactly? The story was reported, period. Don't get your panties in a twist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
Oh, they get it. Lol. Its just deflection, trying to not answer and annoy at the same time. Bear in mind, the issues that this story brings up throws a spanner in the gears of the leftist/progressive mindset. So, minus an effective argument , all that's left is to scurry about the issues and questions like blind mice. Just ignore, and hope it all goes away.
Remember, also, that their thought process does not recognize the issue of personal defense. Thus, the reporting issue you point to. Incidents like this, where the good guys win, and use of personal arms is a factor, doesn't fit the agenda. Only when the bad guys use illegal weapons , and claim more victims, does reporting escalate. A positive outcome in a self defense situation must be ignored, or criticized as being an improper response. Taking the law into ones own hands, doing the job of the police, etc.
Take the fact that police officers are exempt from the law governing domestic violence conviction and firearms, for instance. Another inconvenient fact, that the anti self defense crowd refuses to address. Just like the reporting issue, they can't address it. Yet, it was their bright idea to do things that way, so implicit is their trust in the government and police. As I said, they "get it", just fine. They just can't justify it to a truly rational thinker.
All I see are words that mean nothing. Perhaps you should read my original post where I did indeed say that this man was justified in shooting the ex. But go ahead & just ramble on with no clear thought. Makes you look super intelligent.
I haven't been in NLV for a couple of years. They also overturned the municipal anti-CCW law there fairly recently, from what I read.
It was originally passed to be able to bust the bangers that moved to NLV back in the nineties when Cali passed their three strikes law. It was illegal to have a gun in a car to make busting those guys easier.
Aahhh. So they did finally overturn that. Been out of the loop for a while, so that's good to know. I knew it was because of the bangers, so IG was like one place in this state decent folks really needed to carry, they couldn't. I've only been to Vegas twice in my life. I'm a die hard NNV boy. Reno/Sparks was big enough to suit me. CC is just fine, actually.
Get what exactly? The story was reported, period. Don't get your panties in a twist.
All I see are words that mean nothing. Perhaps you should read my original post where I did indeed say that this man was justified in shooting the ex. But go ahead & just ramble on with no clear thought. Makes you look super intelligent.
How do you figure I was speaking, specifically, about you? Because I wasn't. I was talking about the general problem , with media , the anti firearms agenda, and lawmakers, and bow they ignore or downplay issues revolving around self defense and personal arms. If you're part of any of these, aforementioned groups, then feel free to be miffed, I guess. But, if I was specifically addressing you, I would have quoted you. Carry on.
Being you DON'T see the point, there is no use trying to explain it to you any more.
You will NEVER get it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
Oh, they get it. Lol. Its just deflection, trying to not answer and annoy at the same time. Bear in mind, the issues that this story brings up throws a spanner in the gears of the leftist/progressive mindset. So, minus an effective argument , all that's left is to scurry about the issues and questions like blind mice. Just ignore, and hope it all goes away.
Remember, also, that their thought process does not recognize the issue of personal defense. Thus, the reporting issue you point to. Incidents like this, where the good guys win, and use of personal arms is a factor, doesn't fit the agenda. Only when the bad guys use illegal weapons , and claim more victims, does reporting escalate. A positive outcome in a self defense situation must be ignored, or criticized as being an improper response. Taking the law into ones own hands, doing the job of the police, etc.
Take the fact that police officers are exempt from the law governing domestic violence conviction and firearms, for instance. Another inconvenient fact, that the anti self defense crowd refuses to address. Just like the reporting issue, they can't address it. Yet, it was their bright idea to do things that way, so implicit is their trust in the government and police. As I said, they "get it", just fine. They just can't justify it to a truly rational thinker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
How do you figure I was speaking, specifically, about you? Because I wasn't. I was talking about the general problem , with media , the anti firearms agenda, and lawmakers, and bow they ignore or downplay issues revolving around self defense and personal arms. If you're part of any of these, aforementioned groups, then feel free to be miffed, I guess. But, if I was specifically addressing you, I would have quoted you. Carry on.
Mmmm, yes, I guess you weren't responding to Quick Enough who had just responded to my post. Keep backpedaling though.
Are you skeptical of the sweet promises Hillary coughs at you? I'm suspect your skepticism might end there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
