Is This What Was Meant By "Open Carry"

[Indacouch]

Leave my uncle alone you basterds ....lol jk ....il bet he's retired with lots of extra time on his hands ...

 

[whitebb2727]

My point is don't be an asshole. I don't know what his purpose was. I do know that there were a shit load of security in and around that convention center. I can't imagine how he was helping. If he wasn't helping then he was a distraction to law enforcement. Which makes him an asshole for asserting his rights in front of the nation and a crowd simply for show. Keep your rights and all that but don't be an asshole.

I can agree.

 

[desert dude]

An old man got angry that another guy was texting during movie promos before the real movie started. He confronted the texter. The texter threw popcorn in the old man's face. Old man shot him dead. The old man is pleading innocent based on stand your ground. The trial hasn't started yet. Win or lose, the stand your ground law made somebody dead. Rational decisions when fearful -- not congruent.

Even with hundreds of hours of training, cops make bad choices some of the time during tests. Civilians are going to be better? If you can't be certain that you will make the right choice, what right do you have to carry?

The old man is a retired police captain. He is going to jail. What he did is not reasonable.

The SYG law did not kill the texter. The demented old man killed the texter.

I can't be certain that a meteor won't fall on my head. That doesn't invalidate my right to look at the sky.

I trust civilians with firearms much more than I trust cops. Cops almost always have a get out of jail free card to play. Ordinary citizens are drug through a knothole when involved in a justifiable homicide.

You lefties shout "black lives matter" and "fuck the police", and yet are trying your damnedest to make sure only cops are armed. How do you reconcile those utterly contradictory positions?

 

[StevieBevie]

An old man got angry that another guy was texting during movie promos before the real movie started. He confronted the texter. The texter threw popcorn in the old man's face. Old man shot him dead. The old man is pleading innocent based on stand your ground. The trial hasn't started yet. Win or lose, the stand your ground law made somebody dead. Rational decisions when fearful -- not congruent.

Even with hundreds of hours of training, cops make bad choices some of the time during tests. Civilians are going to be better? If you can't be certain that you will make the right choice, what right do you have to carry?

That is well said, and why I do not carry in public. I want to protect my home, and my property, mostly from critters, but also because I am so far out in the country that I can't rely on police protection if there was a problem on my property. I personally do not carry because I do not want to make an error in public, and I would be horrified if a gun I carried in whatever fashion killed or hurt an innocent. I think it is a huge responsibility and not a responsibility I am willing to assume in public. My personal safety is important, but equally important is every other citizens right to life. The old man needs to go to prison, but I don't think the law caused this death. He was not in fear of great bodily harm or death, there is no excuse for what he did...

 

[desert dude]

I was never on the jury, and all my info is indirect. However from what I remember, George was not justified. Too many facts or maybefacts in that case pointed to a Rambo wannabe who manufactured the threat in his mind.

Imo folks like Zimmerman constitute the biggest threat to continued citizen-centric gun legislation.

Welcome back, C. Long time no see.

The jury unanimously acquitted. They heard all the evidence. There was extreme public and political pressure to convict Z, and they still acquitted him. I watched most of the trial on court TV. The prosecution had no case whatever. It was just a show trial put on solely to pacify the angry mob.

 

[UncleBuck]

Welcome back, C. Long time no see.

The jury unanimously acquitted. They heard all the evidence. There was extreme public and political pressure to convict Z, and they still acquitted him. I watched most of the trial on court TV. The prosecution had no case whatever. It was just a show trial put on solely to pacify the angry mob.

again, no one here wants to hear the racist opinions of a white supremacist who spent months lying about his membership in a white supremacy group.

and you conveniently left out the part where half the jury wanted to convict him of murder. so much for "no case whatsoever". i guess they all got pressured by juror B37, the one who referred to martin as "that colored boy", because she was just as much of a loudmouth racist as you are.

go switch out the 13 guns in your truck to compensate for your tiny, flaccid penis now. your wife is fat and your sons are losers.

 

[Fogdog]

The old man is a retired police captain. He is going to jail. What he did is not reasonable.

The SYG law did not kill the texter. The demented old man killed the texter.

I can't be certain that a meteor won't fall on my head. That doesn't invalidate my right to look at the sky.

I trust civilians with firearms much more than I trust cops. Cops almost always have a get out of jail free card to play. Ordinary citizens are drug through a knothole when involved in a justifiable homicide.

You lefties shout "black lives matter" and "fuck the police", and yet are trying your damnedest to make sure only cops are armed. How do you reconcile those utterly contradictory positions?

You treat two separate issues as though they are one.

Black lives matter and fuck the police. There are considerable number of issues with the current state of the police force. And nobody is doing much about them. The BLM protests aren't about eliminating police, they are about raising awareness that cops are beating and killing people they are supposed to be protecting. It is about improving the force, not eliminating it/

On the other hand, a society without the police, where everybody has to be strapped or they are victimized? What the hell kind of fantasy do you have going on there. My 95 year old neighbor was unable to remember what happened 15 minutes ago and you say he should be strapped? Or the drug addict down the street (not that I know one but maybe he's here), am I supposed to gate and lock my house because I am the only one responsible for my security?

Hell no. I have a lock on my main door, a dog in the house who will alert us and a lock on my bedroom door. I'll call 911 in a heartbeat and barricade my door. Unlike Steve, I live close enough so that help can be there in reasonable time. Meanwhile we get out through the windows and go to a neighbor. The robbers can have my stuff, I don't care.

Is this a perfect solution? No, but the odds of that home invasion during my lifetime is less than 1%. I'll take that risk.

Across the country, more people are hurt in accidents with firearms than successfully defend with a gun. Some surveys show that you are more likely to be hurt by a criminal if you try to defend with your gun than if you didn't try but the sample size is pretty small. In any case, by a wide margin, most people are less safe with a gun than without it. I'm not saying people shouldn't own a gun but really folks your fantasies are not reality.

 

[SoOLED]

Oh I totally do! I see fathers screaming at the refs, and worse yet have seen fist fights, and mothers and fathers belittling their own kids and other peoples children over a missed tackle. Yes I could totally see people pulling out their guns, some of these people are nuts over something that is supposed to be fun and good sport...

if they were gonna do ( and by do I mean shoot people) something like open carry would have little to do with it, they would come with an agenda from a previous encounter. have the gun open carry or brought to design is moot.

 

[Fogdog]

if they were gonna do ( and by do I mean shoot people) something like open carry would have little to do with it, they would come with an agenda from a previous encounter. have the gun open carry or brought to design is moot.

aren't most of that kind of incident one of anger and not planned in advance?

 

[StevieBevie]

if they were gonna do ( and by do I mean shoot people) something like open carry would have little to do with it, they would come with an agenda from a previous encounter. have the gun open carry or brought to design is moot.

I am not sure of that. I don't think a lot of these people going to these little league games plan on fighting with the ref, belittling their children and others children, and having fist fights with other parents, but it ends that way sometimes. I am glad these same folks are not carrying just saying as they have little emotional control...

 

[Fogdog]

The old man is a retired police captain. He is going to jail. What he did is not reasonable.

The SYG law did not kill the texter. The demented old man killed the texter.

The old man was planning to use stand your ground defense the moment he took out his gun. He shot the guy. Sat down and waited for his fellow officers who he used to supervise to show up. He will get off on the defense too. Because he was scared and that's all the law requires.

 

[desert dude]

In the space of a few minutes, you wrote these two sentences. I am pretty sure I know exactly what you think of the RKBA.

"If you can't be certain that you will make the right choice, what right do you have to carry?"
...
"I'm not saying people shouldn't own a gun but really folks your fantasies are not reality."

 

[desert dude]

The old man was planning to use stand your ground defense the moment he took out his gun. He shot the guy. Sat down and waited for his fellow officers who he used to supervise to show up. He will get off on the defense too. Because he was scared and that's all the law requires.

Riiiiigggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttt!

Please post the relevant Florida statute that allows one to kill another because "I was scared".

When you resort to outright lies, you have no argument whatever.

If the old coot lives long enough, I predict he will be convicted or plead guilty. He might get off on some sort of insanity plea, Alzheimer's dementia or some such.

Do you want to wager on whether he is convicted?

 

[Fogdog]

I think in Florida you can kill anybody who scares you.

Only if they're black.

True, this

Riiiiigggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttt!

Please post the relevant Florida statute that allows one to kill another because "I was scared".

When you resort to outright lies, you have no argument whatever.

If the old coot lives long enough, I predict he will be convicted or plead guilty. He might get off on some sort of insanity plea, Alzheimer's dementia or some such.

Do you want to wager on whether he is convicted?

So put this in your pipe and smoke it DD, your idea of some high standard for applying stand your ground defense is just your old man dementia driven dreaming. Not even law enforcement or prosecutors say so. And if the victim is black, a person is twice as likely to be let go. Like Zimmerman.

Race, law, and health: Examination of ‘Stand Your Ground’ and defendant convictions in Florida

Highlights

• We examine racial bias related to the “Stand Your Ground” statute in Florida.
• We find race of the victim to be a predictor of conviction of the defendant.
• Conviction is more likely in cases of White victims versus non-White victims.
• Stand Your Ground legislation in Florida has a quantifiable racial bias.

https://psmag.com/stand-your-ground-convictions-reveal-clear-racial-bias-2d4c9a43abf5#.o3pyk7qqy
Prior to the passage of the law, a citizen in Florida had the duty to retreat when confronted with lethal force or with deadly force or the perception of deadly force. So they — someone had to retreat. But now, the way the law is structured, you can meet deadly force by basically standing your ground. Where you are is your castle, and you have the right to protect yourself. The problem (is that) a lot of the police and prosecutors think that it basically gives carte blanche to shoot first and ask questions later.

Can you shoot someone, claim self-defense, and get away with the murder? Maybe, maybe not — but your odds are a lot better if the person you attack is black.

That’s the chilling implication of a newly published study, which examines 204 cases involving Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law. It reports that, once a series of variables are taken into account, defendants in these cases were twice as likely to be convicted if their victim was white.

“Our results depict a disturbing message,” writes a research team led byMelody Goodman of Washington University in St. Louis. “Stand-your-ground legislation in Florida has a quantifiable racial bias that reveals a leniency in convictions if the victim is nonwhite.”

 

[cannabineer]

Welcome back, C. Long time no see.

The jury unanimously acquitted. They heard all the evidence. There was extreme public and political pressure to convict Z, and they still acquitted him. I watched most of the trial on court TV. The prosecution had no case whatever. It was just a show trial put on solely to pacify the angry mob.

Hello, Desert Dude. I disagree. From what I saw, they acquitted on the excellent old tradition of assuring innocence unless proven guilty. Were I on the jury, I do not know how I would have chosen. I assume they heard much we did not. I am not privy to that extra info.

But from what I remember on the Trayvon thread, he set the kid up. Acquitted does not equal "didn't do it".

My opinion: he was acquitted just like OJ, who was ultimately shown to be guilty. I am pleased our judicial and trial system is biased toward a presumption of innocence. But that in no way proves that Zimmerman was actually innocent. I maintain that a young man died needlessly at the hands of a wannabe Rambo.

 

[Cx2H]

I lived in FL for 20 years before. That sheet down there is fuqd up.
#Random

 

[ttystikk]

Your saying the leadership of the organization wants people to show up dressed like that guy did in the picture at a park....I do not think so...They might defend his legal right to do so, but I do not believe that this is behavior that they would condone or encourage. Safe and responsible gun ownership is the desire, that behavior will get our rights removed, so no, I do not think they would condone that...

This is bone headed; if you send in your membership dues, you're supporting them and their policies.

 

[StevieBevie]

This is bone headed; if you send in membership dues, you're supporting them and their policies.

I pay my membership dues to maintain my right to own a handgun, it is narrow thinking to believe that all people of any group or organization believe all the same things. My membership is about what I believe needs to be protected and that is my right to own guns...

 

[StevieBevie]

This is bone headed; if you send in your membership dues, you're supporting them and their policies.

I think that is narrow minded to believe all people of an organization believe the same things. Not all republicans believe that abortion is wrong, and not all Democrats believe that abortion is right, still they belong to the party that holds to the majority of beliefs that they have. Same with the NRA. I am a member because I believe they support and defend my right to bear arms.

 

[ttystikk]

I pay my membership dues to maintain my right to own a handgun, it is narrow thinking to believe that all people of any group or organization believe all the same things. My membership is about what I believe needs to be protected and that is my right to own guns...

You have some serious blinders on to think your membership dues get used for anything but their posturing and lobbying efforts in Washington, DC.

I laugh derisively at your obvious hypocrisy in supporting an organization financially while claiming not to support their politics.