• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What can we do for fun?

Demarest

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
245
Location
Toledo, Ohio, USA
imported post

dngreer wrote:
Some people are stupid, have no common sense, and honestly, don't really have any business having a gun.
"...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." If they are walking the street, they are equally subject to criminal attack and government tyranny as you, and therefore covered under the Second Amendment just as equally. The anti's try to use every excuse in the book to say YOU are unfit to carry a gun. Don't help them along by pretending that double standards are okay.

dngreer wrote:
Sometimes we are so engrossed with supporting guns rights, and personal freedoms, etc., that we lose sight of what is really going on.
Look again. It's the exact opposite. People willing to control others for any reason are so engrossed with trying to define and justify those reasons that they are willing to liken two college students waving pellet guns at people with A) felons B) terrorists and C) child molestors.

These students are not responsible for Virginia Tech. They had no hand in Columbine. Okay?
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Can the Second Amendment be repealed? The answer is yes it is possible but unlikely. However there is a group trying to restrict it and doing a pretty good job at it in many places. Events like the two boys pointing pellet guns are people passing by gives the Brady Bunch plenty of ammunition to help their cause. One of the things about the VT incident was that Cho should not have been allowed to purchase a gun under present laws. If his purchase had been perfectly OK under present laws you can bet your last dollar that there would be many proposals right now to have it changed. As long as legal gun owners keep showing that there is no problem with guns and that the problems are with the outlaws, we can continue to make strides. Every time some idiot with a gun like these cause problems or even perceived problems it adds to the Brady Bunch arsenal.

When we reach the point that the second amendment is interpreted to allow anyone to walk around with any gun they want, with no restrictions I look for the second amendment to cease to exist. The second amendment is not carved in stone but is just what it is called, and amendment that can be amended.
 

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

I guess the fact still remains that even these guys get hit withfelonies, if they really want guns, or are determined to live a life of crime, a law is not going to keep them on the straight and narrow road for the rest of their lives.
 

Demarest

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
245
Location
Toledo, Ohio, USA
imported post

PT111 wrote:
When we reach the point that the second amendment is interpreted to allow anyone to walk around with any gun they want, with no restrictions I look for the second amendment to cease to exist. The second amendment is not carved in stone but is just what it is called, and amendment that can be amended.
Usually, it's the anti's that predict that everybody being armed would lead to the end of civilization. We're supposed to understand that people are mostly good so more people with guns means more GOOD people with guns and more incentive for EVERYBODY to not misuse them.

The first ten amenments are called the Bill of Rights. Some states would not ratify the Constitution without them. They are not amendments in the traditional sense and are off limits as they represent rights greater than this nation can legislate. Besides, that one will never be stricken because we're supposed to fight for it unlike the UK.

Two college students waving pellet guns has nothing to do with the Brady Campaign. The BC is about FIREARMS. Also, modern law would not have stopped Cho. Cho was allowed to purchase firearms because his former therapist felt what he was treated for was not serious enough and they were probably right AT THAT TIME. Anti's speak as if the law failed us because they subscribe to the unrealistic belief that you can prevent everything. They're willing to blame everything/everybody EXCEPT Cho because A) Cho is dead now and B) firearms were used and that presents a political opportunity.

What really pisses me off about this process is the way some of you will bury these guys because doing so would not touch YOUR guns. It's as if you trust that if you tell the other side that calling somebody they don't want to have guns a mental defective, making felons out of non-violent pranksters, etc, they won't come after YOUR guns next. History tells us otherwise.

@dngreer: Let's just make you a felon because if you still wanted to have guns, you could get them. See how silly that sounds? To suspect that these guys are criminals just because of ONE example of a lapse of judgement where nobody was hurt is preposterous and elitist. Allowing elitism to thrive and flourish is the fastest way to lose all of our rights.
 

Slowhand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
139
Location
Woodbridge, VA, ,
imported post

Demarest wrote:
Do these guys deserve retribution? Sure. Do they deserve to become felons over it? Hardly. In fact, if we had a functional system, part of their sentencing would be taking a basic NRA course. I can't speak for others, but my respect for firearms and safety went from near zero to VERY important with just step one of formal education. Once they learn the REAL seriousness of what it was they were immitating, they would not only do it again, but might turn out for the better as a result. Our current form of government is trying to make felons out of as many people as possible for the goal of control and it's our job to stop them from taking that which they are not entitled to.
I agree that it shouldn't warrant a felony. I was lucky growing up. My father collected firearms and was EXTREMELY safety conscious. Something that he instilled in his boys at a very young age. When my Mother re-married a Marine later on when I was 8 years old,my new step-fathertaught me how to shoot NRA competion small bore the RIGHT ("Marine") way. As I grew up, I met friends that had grown up with firearms friendly parents who knew how to be safe with firearms. But I also had "friends" that didn't know the first thing about guns and decided on a whim that they were going to buy one (without reading up on, or getting formal training in handling firearms). I have had people point loaded firearms at me and pull back the hammer on a loaded hanggun and put their finger on the trigger and think it was a big joke. I almost beat the cr*p out of one guy that did that and throw his revolver in the river where we were on his house boat. Needless to say, I don't hang out with that person anymore.
 

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

Demarest wrote:
@dngreer: Let's just make you a felon because if you still wanted to have guns, you could get them. See how silly that sounds? To suspect that these guys are criminals just because of ONE example of a lapse of judgement where nobody was hurt is preposterous and elitist. Allowing elitism to thrive and flourish is the fastest way to lose all of our rights.
:question:I give up...
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

How about these fellows, do they just need some NRA Training?

http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/10/loyola_students_doing_stickups.html

(snip)The three Loyola University students arrested this week in connection with the attempted robberies of several people near the university apparently were not after money but were engaged in some type of misguided hoax, according to police reports detailing the incidents.

In each of the incidents, the students -- two freshmen and a junior -- allegedly flashed fake handguns at their victims and demanded money. But when it came time for a wallet or purse to be handed over, court records state that the students passed on the opportunity, saying, "We are just playing." Then the trio drove away, laughing, records say.

New Orleans police do not consider it a laughing matter. Officers arrested the students early Thursday morning in the 1300 block of Broadway, shortly after the attempted stick-ups.

Mohamed Diakite, 20, Chukwuemeka Anigbo, 18, and John A. White, 18, were charged with several counts of attempted armed robbery. A magistrate judge set a $250,000 bond for each student and a preliminary hearing is scheduled for Oct. 18. If convicted, the students face from five to 48¤1/2 years in prison on each count.(/snip)
 

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

They both claimed to be joking, or "just playing"! It's the same situation! They are both crimes. You can't just go running around pretending to rob people, you can't just point guns at people and say it's a practical joke. I really don't understand how this even really needs to be explained. It's not okay to "pretend" to rob a bank, it's not okay to "pretend" to steal something, it's not okay to "pretend" that you are going to shoot someone (Ok, with the exception of when we were kids playing cowboys and indians playing with cap guns). With this kind of reasoning, friend, I think you mayhave earned an honorary degree from HankT University!

blowup.gif
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Demarest wrote:
I'm terribly confused. It's as if you don't understand there's a difference between a crime and not a crime.
To suspect that these guys are criminals just because of ONE example of a lapse of judgement where nobody was hurt is preposterous and elitist. Allowing elitism to thrive and flourish is the fastest way to lose all of our rights.
So is what they did a crime or not? It is a crime to point a firearm at someone, but it is not a crime to walk up to someone and say "give me some money" and then say, "April Fool". :what: The three at Loyola did not have a weapon.:banghead:
 

Heartless_Conservative

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
269
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

I think the differerence is that the three at Loyola were committing felony armed robbery*, while the the guys in the OP were committing misdeameanor level crimes (at least, thats what I gather from the anemic journalistic write-up).

*Well, attempted armed robbery, since they didn't actually take anything.
 

WV XD Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
44
Location
, ,
imported post

I think a felony charge is warranted. The situation that they created could have gone horribly worse. For example if they had done this to an off-duty LEO or a CHL holder. Not only could they have gotten shot, but possibly innocent bystanders as well. That said, the "fear" alone that they brought about from their action should be enough to warrant a felony charge. A lot of BB guns look very similar to real guns, and one would be hard pressed to tell the difference. I wonder if everyone would feel that these charges were not warranted if they were using real guns with live ammunition?? The people that they were pointing them at thought they were..
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Heartless_Conservative wrote:
I think the differerence is that the three at Loyola were committing felony armed robbery*, while the the guys in the OP were committing misdeameanor level crimes (at least, thats what I gather from the anemic journalistic write-up).

*Well, attempted armed robbery, since they didn't actually take anything.
Was it armed robbery since they didn't have guns, only fake ones? The others had real pellet guns. Does the type of gun matter and if they didn't inend to cause any harm?
 

Demarest

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
245
Location
Toledo, Ohio, USA
imported post

Robbery is a crime.

Robbery is a crime. Do you see?

Waving a hunk of plastic is not. That hunk of plastic resembles a firearm, a couple people were shook up as a result... This is why they need to be reprimanded by the university. The law has no place here as no crime was committed.

Robbery on the other hand, is a crime. I don't care if you use a Crayola crayon to committ the robbery. It's still a ROBBERY. Which by the way, is a crime.

And shame on you, WV XD guy, for supporting a measure of gun control used by the anti's just because it won't take YOUR gun. Do you REALLY believe they won't aim for yours next? Make a mistake on a tax return. Oops, you're a "felon." "We'll take that XD, thank you."
 

Brian D.

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
937
Location
Cincy area, Ohio, USA
imported post

I'll play Solomon here and propose that the kids in Stuebenville be charged with felonies, but convicted of misdemeanors. They're in college they should be old enough to know better.
 

WV XD Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
44
Location
, ,
imported post

Demarest wrote:
Robbery is a crime.

Robbery is a crime. Do you see?

Waving a hunk of plastic is not. That hunk of plastic resembles a firearm, a couple people were shook up as a result... This is why they need to be reprimanded by the university. The law has no place here as no crime was committed.

Robbery on the other hand, is a crime. I don't care if you use a Crayola crayon to committ the robbery. It's still a ROBBERY. Which by the way, is a crime.

And shame on you, WV XD guy, for supporting a measure of gun control used by the anti's just because it won't take YOUR gun. Do you REALLY believe they won't aim for yours next? Make a mistake on a tax return. Oops, you're a "felon." "We'll take that XD, thank you."
Um no, pointing a gun at someone is a crime. It doesn't matter if it is real or not. How is anyone on the receiving end suppossed to tell the difference. And, yes I do not believe that they should be allowed to own firearms now. I am sorry, but if you go around threatening people by pointing a gun at them for fun, you should not be allowed to have one in my opinion
 

Demarest

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
245
Location
Toledo, Ohio, USA
imported post

WV XD Guy wrote:
And, yes I do not believe that they should [not] be allowed to own firearms now. I am sorry, but if you go around threatening people by pointing a gun at them for fun, you should not be allowed to have one in my opinion
Those in power thank you for assisting their efforts in disarming us all so that they can level upon us whatever they like without fear of resistance. If ANYBODY is incapable of the responsibility of a firearm, they should be behind bars. Shame on you for preaching for a sheep class of citizens which only perpetuates the cycle of violence by ensuring that there are always ripe targets.

Also, show me the law that states it is illegal to point PELLET guns at others. I invite you to this because I cannot argue that there was no guns present since they are technically propellers of some kind.

@Brian D.: You too are perpetuating the abuse of the word felony, which only seeks to consume us all, one at a time. Speaking as somebody that had pending charges (not earned, not felonious), it has impacts in ways you cannot imagine. Shame on you for attacking your countrymen in such a fashion.
 

Brian D.

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
937
Location
Cincy area, Ohio, USA
imported post

Demarest wrote:

@Brian D.: You too are perpetuating the abuse of the word felony, which only seeks to consume us all, one at a time. Speaking as somebody that had pending charges (not earned, not felonious), it has impacts in ways you cannot imagine. Shame on you for attacking your countrymen in such a fashion.

This constant proselytization is why nearly everybody leaves that forum of yours. Sorry, I've been living out here in the World of What Really Happens for too long to fall for it. "The Man" is not out to turn us all into felons. By the way you certainly can be charged and convicted for pointing fake firearms at people. If not a felony, certainly a misdemeanor, you know, sorta like I suggested might happen in the first example posted in the thread?

In the Steubenville case it sounds like some sort of over-the-top, 'Mommy and Daddy never set limits on me before, w-a-a-h!' prank gone amok, but if they were college aged I reiterate that they should have known better.
 
Top