Hearing on gun laws happens in Connecticut, people come wearing shirts to protest gun laws, for or a - Polidicks

[QUOTE=The Baconator;39397112]his mom didn't secure the guns, it was easily accessed by Adam. That is not responsible gun ownership[/QUOTE] One of the things that [B]REALLY[/B] needs to be cracked down on. Mandatory gun safe bolted to a integral part of the house, and also a separate one for ammunition. with different combination and/or key.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39398943]One of the things that [B]REALLY[/B] needs to be cracked down on. Mandatory gun safe bolted to a integral part of the house, and also a separate one for ammunition. with different combination and/or key.[/QUOTE] While that is an effective counter measure, most people will use really weak passwords on their safe's.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39398943]One of the things that [B]REALLY[/B] needs to be cracked down on. Mandatory gun safe bolted to a integral part of the house, and also a separate one for ammunition. with different combination and/or key.[/QUOTE] But the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to self defense within the home, and your hairbrained idea would make that impossible. And for that matter it wouldn't accomplish anything else. It could also be argued that the requirement to own your own home and be able to pay for the equipment and installation fees just to comply with such a law would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it would discriminate against people of lower economic standing.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;39399865]But the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to self defense within the home, and your hairbrained idea would make that impossible. And for that matter it wouldn't accomplish anything else. It could also be argued that the requirement to own your own home and be able to pay for the equipment and installation fees just to comply with such a law would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it would discriminate against people of lower economic standing.[/QUOTE] I didn't say you weren't allowed to carry it on your person. But the moment you're not it should damn right be locked in a safe. A government doesn't flick the "evil & tyrannical switch" from one day to the other without people noticing.

Would you have everyone concerned about self defense wear a holster to sleep? A nightstand gun or even a quick-access finger safe would be in violation of your proposal. And once again said proposal discriminates against both poor people and people living in high-density urban areas where it might not be possible to easily own real estate or retrofit existing buildings with safes which would have to interface with the supporting structure without potentially compromising integrity.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;39399960]Would you have everyone concerned about self defense wear a holster to sleep? A nightstand gun or even a quick-access finger safe would be in violation of your proposal. And once again said proposal discriminates against both poor people and people living in high-density urban areas where it might not be possible to easily own real estate or retrofit existing buildings with safes which would have to interface with the supporting structure without potentially compromising integrity.[/QUOTE] Is a gun your preferred choice for a burglar in the night? Even a gnarly pepperspray is more than enough there to buy you time to incapacitate said robber. And if the burglar could shoot you before you shower him in pepper spray, then he could've easily done the same with you pulling the trigger on the gun that you had laying on your bedroom drawer all night. Another beef of mine. People who prefer lethal weapons in situations where less-than-lethal could easily do the same job.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39400000]Is a gun your preferred choice for a burglar in the night? Even a gnarly pepperspray is more than enough there to buy you time to incapacitate said robber. And if the burglar could shoot you before you shower him in pepper spray, then he could've easily done the same with you pulling the trigger on the gun that you had laying on your bedroom drawer all night. Another beef of mine. People who prefer lethal weapons in situations where less-than-lethal could easily do the same job.[/QUOTE] You meet deadly force with deadly force. Just because someone breaks in to the house does not mean you can blast the fuck out of them. You could, but the repercussions could be bad for the home owner. (IE charged with murder, manslaughter or deadly conduct) Also pepper spray and tasers (Civilians models specially) are not fool-proof. I've sprayed people with OC when in corrections and they just eat that shit up and laugh. It does not effect everyone, some people get hit with OC and completely fall apart, others not so much. Same goes with tasers, I've seen one fry itself and malfunctions (They're literally a computer with a plastic housing, they do record data). If someone is breaking into your home at night, the only safe way to protect yourself is a firearm. If they don't have a gun I personally would give them a warning and give them the chance to surrender or flee. However, if they want to push the matter and try and hurt me...they're pretty much done in my book. If they have a knife or gun, they get no warning. There are far to many variables to take a chance in my eyes. They have no respect for my life or property what makes you think they're suddenly going to stop because you show up?

[QUOTE=The Baconator;39396359]btw the comments on the Youtube video are all filled with nuts claiming the shootings didn't happen and he is an actor[/QUOTE] People like that are scorn of the earth but, hey, fuck it, whatever, nothing I can do, you know? [QUOTE=valkery;39396516]Correction: Bushmaster[/QUOTE] AK47

If the robber is armed, your pepper spray isn't going to keep you or your family safe.

The guy is obviously an actor, so many tell-tell signs. Saying exactly what the government is trying to push for; only having a picture of his "6 year old son" as a baby. And in that picture, he isn't 5 years younger what-so-ever.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39396659]A comment from the video: lmao whats with all these loonies who think the big bad government will come to their house, huff and puff, then blow their house down and take all their rifles?[/QUOTE] I'm wondering why they just don't move to like Russia or something if they're that afraid of the government, this isn't fucking North Korea or something.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39396659]A comment from the video: lmao whats with all these loonies who think the big bad government will come to their house, huff and puff, then blow their house down and take all their rifles?[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;blXkl9YVoHo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo[/video]

[QUOTE=Ridge;39404017][video=youtube;blXkl9YVoHo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo[/video][/QUOTE] Yeah, and Todd Akin is the combined voice of the GOP! Brilliant! Let's just keep simplifying stuff, it'll make discussing it much simpler!

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39404043]Yeah, and Todd Akin is the combined voice of the GOP! Brilliant! Let's just keep simplifying stuff, it'll make discussing it much simpler![/QUOTE] She is the author of the current AWB bill in Congress. This is literally all she has done for almost 20 years. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

[QUOTE=MR-X;39403784]You meet deadly force with deadly force. Just because someone breaks in to the house does not mean you can blast the fuck out of them. You could, but the repercussions could be bad for the home owner. (IE charged with murder, manslaughter or deadly conduct) Also pepper spray and tasers (Civilians models specially) are not fool-proof. I've sprayed people with OC when in corrections and they just eat that shit up and laugh. It does not effect everyone, some people get hit with OC and completely fall apart, others not so much. Same goes with tasers, I've seen one fry itself and malfunctions (They're literally a computer with a plastic housing, they do record data). If someone is breaking into your home at night, the only safe way to protect yourself is a firearm. If they don't have a gun I personally would give them a warning and give them the chance to surrender or flee. However, if they want to push the matter and try and hurt me...they're pretty much done in my book. If they have a knife or gun, they get no warning. There are far to many variables to take a chance in my eyes. They have no respect for my life or property what makes you think they're suddenly going to stop because you show up?[/QUOTE] In Minnesota I can "Blast the fuck out of them" If they break into my home. The law states that deadly force is justified only when you feel that your or someone elses life is in immediate danger [b]OR[/b] someone is committing a felony in the place of which you reside (does not have to be your registered address). Since breaking into a home is a felony, I can shoot as soon as I see them. Granted I'm not going to, legally you are allowed to here. There are some states that are more lenient, some that even cover a broader area such as Castle Laws which include your property.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39404060]She is the author of the current AWB bill in Congress. This is literally all she has done for almost 20 years.[I] If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck[/I].[/QUOTE] Oh so many times that could've been used on you :haw: [QUOTE=MR-X;39403784]You meet deadly force with deadly force. Just because someone breaks in to the house does not mean you can blast the fuck out of them. You could, but the repercussions could be bad for the home owner. (IE charged with murder, manslaughter or deadly conduct) Also pepper spray and tasers (Civilians models specially) are not fool-proof. I've sprayed people with OC when in corrections and they just eat that shit up and laugh. It does not effect everyone, some people get hit with OC and completely fall apart, others not so much. Same goes with tasers, I've seen one fry itself and malfunctions (They're literally a computer with a plastic housing, they do record data). If someone is breaking into your home at night, the only safe way to protect yourself is a firearm. If they don't have a gun I personally would give them a warning and give them the chance to surrender or flee. However, if they want to push the matter and try and hurt me...they're pretty much done in my book. If they have a knife or gun, they get no warning. There are far to many variables to take a chance in my eyes. They have no respect for my life or property what makes you think they're suddenly going to stop because you show up?[/QUOTE] There's different varieties of pepper sprays and tazers, all varying from a piss weak one that basically says [I]"stop that"[/I] to the big & badass [I]"GET THE FUCK DOWN ON THE FLOOR [B]RIGHT NOW!![/B]"[/I] that could even incapacitate a pissed off grizzly bear Also variations in quality (mostly related to tazers in this case) Just like handguns and Ammunitions.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39404060]She is the author of the current AWB bill in Congress. This is literally all she has done for almost 20 years. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.[/QUOTE] Who cares, the would they be able to pass an AWB now? With a republican majority in the House? And you're still using her as the spokesperson for the government, and I really don't think that serves any purpose at all.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39404043]Yeah, and Todd Akin is the combined voice of the GOP! Brilliant! Let's just keep simplifying stuff, it'll make discussing it much simpler![/QUOTE] What? When did anyone start mentioning parties? Its known that Fienstein wanted a total ban, she said it in the past. Now she's backing the next AWB. Gun owners have a legitimate reason to be concerned when someone who has publicly stated that they want a total gun ban starts pushing new gun control legislation. It starts with an AWB, but it does not have to end there. Fienstein can keep pushing for more legislation afterwards if this thing passes. And when did smartass sarcasm become the new go-to response. I've always hated that. [editline]29th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39404097]Who cares, the would they be able to introduce an AWB now? With a republican majority in the House? And you're still using her as the spokesperson for the government, and I really don't think that serves any purpose at all.[/QUOTE] She's a member of the gov't and her legislation has support from both Biden and Obama. There is a lot of people in power that agree with her. I honestly don't understand what your arguing. Of course she doesn't represent the entire government, no shit. And they already introduced the AWB, you're like a week behind.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39404102]What? When did anyone start mentioning parties? Its known that Fienstein wanted a total ban, she said it in the past. Now she's backing the next AWB. Gun owners have a legitimate reason to be concerned when someone who has publicly stated that they want a total gun ban starts pushing new gun control legislation. It starts with an AWB, but it does not have to end there. Fienstein can keep pushing for more legislation afterwards if this thing passes. And when did smartass sarcasm become the new go-to response. I've always hated that. [/QUOTE] At the same time pulling out a straw man did, I guess. And exactly, no one mentioned parties, until Ridge posted a video of Feinstein saying some bullshit. To my knowledge she's just a part of the Democratic party, not Obama or Biden. [QUOTE=Disotrtion;39404102] She's a member of the gov't and her legislation has support from both Biden and Obama. There is a lot of people in power that agree with her. I honestly don't understand what your arguing. Of course she doesn't represent the entire government, no shit. And they already introduced the AWB, you're like a week behind.[/QUOTE] I've honestly not seen any news on that - source? I can't seem to find anything on it going through congress, yet. There's a difference between introducing a bill and it actually having anything to do with the real world. Fuck, just edited out the other part of my post. A minute, please.

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/29/why-the-assault-weapons-ban-is-probably-going-nowhere/"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/29/why-the-assault-weapons-ban-is-probably-going-nowhere/[/URL] First source off of google. Introduced last Thursday. And both Obama and Biden have publicly stated that they support the new AWB.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39404272][URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/29/why-the-assault-weapons-ban-is-probably-going-nowhere/"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/29/why-the-assault-weapons-ban-is-probably-going-nowhere/[/URL] First source off of google. Introduced last Thursday.[/QUOTE] Let me just introduce you to the title: [img]https://public.dm1.livefilestore.com/y1p2RRXY1gf1zwtY-oOFSvxhT6zpt8DgM4k96O9LLS1kamYPdqpCt2ZRoBpodFOoPa-Yn4SMt_NRXLft4bkR-wklg/AWB.PNG?psid=1[/img] Isn't that exactly what I've said? A bill being introduced means buttshits. Hell, this bill is being "introduced": [url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/n-m-state-rep-takes-heat-for-bill-that-would-criminalize-abortion-in-cases-of-rape/[/url] It doesn't mean anything if it doesn't get through.

You said they wouldn't be able to introduce an AWB. They have. IDK maybe you fucked up and meant to say "enforce" or "pass". Will it pass? Both you and I agree its unlikely. But the backers of the AWB have not given up. Not Fienstein or Obama or Biden. On the contrary, Obama is using his campaign organization (Organizing for Action) to gather more support for the AWB. The battle isn't done for them, Fienstein has called it an "uphill battle". Don't dismiss everything so soon. and if the AWB doesn't pass now, that doesn't mean they won't try again in the future. Its no secret that the Republican Party is decaying, and that their grip on the house may slip. Obama's got 4 more years, dude. Anyways, Obama could have even just issued an executive order just like Clinton did, he doesn't need to do it through legislation. If the AWB fails do you think they are all just going to shrug and say, "Oh well!"

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39404516]You said they wouldn't be able to introduce an AWB. They have. IDK maybe you fucked up and meant to say "enforce" or "pass". Will it pass? Both you and I agree its unlikely. But the backers of the AWB have not given up. Not Fienstein or Obama or Biden. On the contrary, Obama is using his campaign organization (Organizing for Action) to gather more support for the AWB. The battle isn't done for them, Fienstein has called it an "uphill battle". Don't dismiss everything so soon. and if the AWB doesn't pass now, that doesn't mean they won't try again in the future. Its no secret that the Republican Party is decaying, and that their grip on the house may slip. Obama's got 4 more years, dude. Anyways, Obama could have even just issued an executive order just like Clinton did, he doesn't need to do it through legislation. If the AWB fails do you think they are all just going to shrug and say, "Oh well!"[/QUOTE] I meant pass, you're correct. Slip of the mind. Sure, they won't give up, but the first post I was responded to was "Government will come and take our guns and use them against us" not "They may or may not get this law through congress at some point in the future".

[QUOTE=Van-man;39404087]Oh so many times that could've been used on you :haw: There's different varieties of pepper sprays and tazers, all varying from a piss weak one that basically says [I]"stop that"[/I] to the big & badass [I]"GET THE FUCK DOWN ON THE FLOOR [B]RIGHT NOW!![/B]"[/I] that could even incapacitate a pissed off grizzly bear Also variations in quality (mostly related to tazers in this case) Just like handguns and Ammunitions.[/QUOTE] I know that, I carry certs for stun guns, tasers, OC spray, stun shields and other less then lethal weapons. Civilians cannot get their hands on tasers LEO's have..if they can they're very expensive. 400-600 dollars range for a older model. Newer models cost a shit ton. For example LEO's can get a taser that shoots 35 feet. Depending on the model it can shoot 3 times or one time. They also can get their hands on a shotgun version of the taser that shoots a special shell that costs a few hundred bucks. There is very little agency's that use it due to cost, beanbags are far more efficient. Civilian tasers are far different, they have a 5-10ft range generally and are often used to "shoot, ditch and run." They're not defensive weapons, they're designed for people to fire them at the attacker and while this person is incapacitated you run. They even advertise that if you use it in a legit encounter and with a police report will send you a new one for free because that is what they want you to do. as for stun guns, don't get me started with that shit. All they use them for is pain compliance, they don't do shit to a person other then inflect some pain in that small area. As for CS gas and OC spray, anyone can get any version. However that being said pepper spray is only works if deployed properly. Most people end up getting it on themselves and fucking themselves up because they don't practice with it. When in a house all these are useless, where the fuck you gonna run to if you taser someone? If you use OC and fuck up you screwed yourself. Home defense is pretty much useless without some basic practice and training. However, using a gun is better then all the options you said and costs about the same if not cheaper. You can get a 200 dollar 12gague and which is perfectly suitable for home defense. Not only is it cost efficient, they're easy to use and it is hard to fuck up aiming with a shotgun.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39404652]I meant pass, you're correct. Slip of the mind. Sure, they won't give up, but the first post I was responded to was "Government will come and take our guns and use them against us" not "They may or may not get this law through congress at some point in the future".[/QUOTE] No you responded quite sarcastically to a video where a known voice for gun control, and more specifically gun bans, talked about how she almost banned guns nationwide. 20 years later now she pushing the next even more restrictive AWB. Like Ridge said, its the same voices 20 years later (Biden also supported the 1994 AWB). By the way if this thing passes it requires owners of "assault weapons" to register their guns. After they die, the guns can't be passed down to family or friends. After a number of generations pass away, 80-90% of the grandfathered "assault weapons" will be out of public hands (that's my estimation by the way). The government doesn't have to wait to ban guns they can just wait till we die. A total ban on guns would be impossible to pass, but with an AWB they can accomplish the same thing. They only have to wait. But that's beside the point, we both agree this bill won't pass. Which brings me to my next point, which I tried to get across to you. A gun ban can be enacted through executive order. Obama and Biden don't need to mess around with legislation. They could bypass all this. But he chose not to, they're trying to do it all through legislation first. If this fails, they'll try again.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39405069]No you responded quite sarcastically to a video where a known voice for gun control, and more specifically gun bans, talked about how she almost banned guns nationwide. 20 years later now she pushing the next even more restrictive AWB. Like Ridge said, its the same voices 20 years later (Biden also supported the 1994 AWB). By the way if this thing passes it requires owners of "assault weapons" to register their guns. After they die, the guns can't be passed down to family or friends. After a number of generations pass away, 80-90% of the grandfathered "assault weapons" will be out of public hands (that's my estimation by the way). The government doesn't have to wait to ban guns they can just wait till we die. A total ban on guns would be impossible to pass, but with an AWB they can accomplish the same thing. They only have to wait. But that's beside the point, we both agree this bill won't pass. Which brings me to my next point, which I tried to get across to you. A gun ban can be enacted through executive order. Obama and Biden don't need to mess around with legislation. They could bypass all this. But he chose not to, they're trying to do it all through legislation first. If this fails, they'll try again.[/QUOTE] You didn't look at the context of the video, apparently. Check out Sobotnik's post, the video was obviously meant as a rebuttal. And in 60-80 years when you die (might be a bit longer, as medication is getting much better, fast), the situation will be completely different. The definition of "assault rifle" may not even make sense at all.

Hey guys get this. Pepper spray for home defense is a fucking stupid idea. You'd have to be both extremely close, and turn off your fucking air conditioning system, or else it would blast you in the face. [editline]29th January 2013[/editline] And most home defense doesn't involve just shooting the guy lol. The best way to stop a person is to show them your gun and say, "Hey buddy look at my hand, Now you can rush towards me and try to disarm me and be shot, or you can wait here while the police arrive , and they won't have to haul your ass to the hospital"

Who the fuck has air conditioning anyway it's a waste of money and makes you feel like you have the flu.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39397694]He's not, there's a lot of separate stories circulating about that shooting. Though if you actually watch the video of police extracting the gun from his trunk it's p. hard to tell exactly what he's pulling out. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrxSgkqJQc[/media] At first it looks much too flat to be an AR 15 and the charging handle that the policeman pulls is on the side of the gun, not the top.[/QUOTE] Also if you look closely, there is an ejected shotgun shell in the trunk, in the logical place it would have been ejected when the cop unchambered it. In the first 10 seconds of the video he ejects the shell, and it is clearly not a rifle round. [editline]29th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39406236]Hey guys get this. Pepper spray for home defense is a fucking stupid idea. You'd have to be both extremely close, and turn off your fucking air conditioning system, or else it would blast you in the face. [editline]29th January 2013[/editline] And most home defense doesn't involve just shooting the guy lol. The best way to stop a person is to show them your gun and say, "Hey buddy look at my hand, Now you can rush towards me and try to disarm me and be shot, or you can wait here while the police arrive , and they won't have to haul your ass to the hospital"[/QUOTE] Actually that could not be more wrong. The best way to stop a person with a weapon is to use it. Whether it be a knife or gun, brandishing your weapon only gives them the chance to draw theirs.