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.
If it were me, I'd shut up about the guns. Instead, Id try to increase penalties for things that people do wrong with guns.
Ie: in my state it's a crime to point a gun at someone in anger who is not a threat. Before phone cameras it was kind of a ridiculous law, but now it's easy to have proof of some idiot threatening you with his gun. A guy went on trial not that long ago for drawing his CCW on unarmed protestors, which a bunch of them took video of.
Was just discussing this recently. In one of the counties here in MI, the CPL holder has to go to trial and risk a 6 year felony to prove his innocence if someone just "says" they saw him draw his weapon and point it. Drawing is brandishing, pointing it is a completely different crime, which if convicted is a mandatory 6 year sentence, no deals or plea bargains. So the legal gun owner now has to prove his innocence , has to go to trial , no deals, no plea bargains. Now a thug pulling an illegal weapon that commits an armed robbery gets to plea bargain the charges down.
So basically your chances of going to prison being a legal CPL holder is greater than being a criminal. Does anyone see an issue with this ?
One of the many ways our politicians are trying to discourage the law abiding from embracing the 2A.
Its already illegal for felons and the mentally I'll to have firearms. Your problem is with anyone having guns. How many do I need? As many as I see fit. That's none of yours, or anyone else's, business. Nor am I obligated, in any way, to explain why I feel I need them. Maybe I just want them. I don't have to justify myself. But since you started it, why do you need to know my needs? Its all none of the governments affair either.
When did all you anti 2a leftist come to think people who own guns have to justify themselves to you? As if your insults and endless , mindless blather have us running scared of what you think. Sheesh, I do believe that liberalism and progressivism are, truly, a mental disease. They surely do impart a sense of self importance to those that follow the doctrines.
Since there is no such thing as a "mental disease". your beliefs are wrong. Mental illnesses and disorders, yes. Diseases, no.
In one of the counties here in MI, the CPL holder has to go to trial and risk a 6 year felony to prove his innocence if someone just "says" they saw him draw his weapon and point it.
If I were a judge, I wouldn't even allow such a case to go to trial without video evidence or corroboration from witnesses unknown/unrelated to the complainant.
Since there is no such thing as a "mental disease". your beliefs are wrong. Mental illnesses and disorders, yes. Diseases, no.
LOL !! Well, I can't refute your claims so I will call you out on using the wrong word , which now makes all your beliefs null and void !
Now that is one way to win a debate !
The biggest danger of Hilda is having her rule by Executive Order, just like Baracko does when he doesn't get his way. Changing the Constitution is all but impossible but that won't stop her from getting around it with her decrees.
Anyone who still thinks that President Hillary Clinton doesn't want to take away any guns should read her own words on her official website. At the top of the page, in big blue letters, it says:
"I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets."
Further down the page, it says:
"She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets."
There are millions of such weapons in the hands of law-abiding American gun owners and the only way to "get them off our streets" would be to ban and confiscate them. Her on-the-record comments regarding Australia's confiscation of such guns is further proof that she'd like to enact a confiscation program here in the United States.
You believe what Hillary says when she talks and don't believe that she promises things she had no intention of delivering?
The two are not mutually exclusive. This is not a single issue campaign and it's entirely possible, in fact it's probable, that a candidate will follow through on some promises while not delivering on others.
Hillary has made her stance on guns and gun control quite clear. Well, as clear as a politician can make things, i.e. she's likely hiding a few things up her sleeve.
LOL !! Well, I can't refute your claims so I will call you out on using the wrong word , which now makes all your beliefs null and void !
Now that is one way to win a debate !
Thanks. Lol, same things crossed my mind. Nit picking linguistics . I used the wrong word so that makes everything I said wrong. I've had posts cherry picked before, so as to twist context and meaning, but this is bout the worst attempt I've seen. Notice, how NOTHING else was addressed. Typical , leftist deflection. Can't refute, so obfuscate. Point out gra.magical errors, and dismiss, based , solely, on that.
Sheesh, I thought my 8tb grade English teacher was anal. Lmao.
Was just discussing this recently. In one of the counties here in MI, the CPL holder has to go to trial and risk a 6 year felony to prove his innocence if someone just "says" they saw him draw his weapon and point it. Drawing is brandishing, pointing it is a completely different crime, which if convicted is a mandatory 6 year sentence, no deals or plea bargains. So the legal gun owner now has to prove his innocence , has to go to trial , no deals, no plea bargains. Now a thug pulling an illegal weapon that commits an armed robbery gets to plea bargain the charges down.
So basically your chances of going to prison being a legal CPL holder is greater than being a criminal. Does anyone see an issue with this ?
One of the many ways our politicians are trying to discourage the law abiding from embracing the 2A.
Judges would require evidence. Heresay is not evidence.
The man was charged with 21 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, disorderly conduct, and menacing. The video evidence is hard to argue with. The person he pointed his weapon at was clearly not threatening him. 18 people testified against him at the grand jury hearing. What he did was reckless.
I'm sure he will bargain down the 1 class c felony charge & probably get sentenced to a fairly hefty fine, I bet like $20k, community service and probation for the misdemeanor charges.
Oregon is pretty gun friendly. Open carry is legal state-wide except for schools, courthouses, federal & state installations, & any jurisdictions that have banned loaded firearms in public. At this point that is only 5 cities - Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence, although almost all cities have banned them from public parks.
Licensed concealed carry is legal everywhere but courthouses & federal installations. That includes college campuses, which they tried to fight & failed, although Oregon culture is mostly against people waving guns in others faces.
You can't pull your gun without good reason. Everyone's phone now is a potential evidence collection device, so people need to be careful waving their gun around.
Last edited by redguard57; 10-13-2016 at 11:52 AM..
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.
