Governor gets gun display bill - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Governor gets gun display bill

  1. #11
    woohoo no more brandishing a firearm charge, gonna go walk down the street with my glock in my hand.

    No but seriously, if you feel the need to pull your self defense tool then use it. Civilians dont need to pull weapons to deter an percieved attack. If its time to stop a threat then stop it, dont pull it and wave it around.
    -Austin

  2.   
  3. #12

    Yes it is

    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    MA would never... I keep getting the feeling that it's time to move...
    Good Call, I'm living in VA now, Lived in Boston my whole life, although Im sure I'll be back up north in a year or two when it comes time to buying a place of my own as much as I'd like to go back to the Boston area to be near friends and family I'm going to NH. It's amazing how much of rights fighter you become when your acknowledged the rights that you technically always had but were denied. It's BS

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Austin View Post
    No but seriously, if you feel the need to pull your self defense tool then use it. Civilians dont need to pull weapons to deter an percieved attack. If its time to stop a threat then stop it, dont pull it and wave it around.
    This was the crux of a thread here maybe a year or more ago...do you pull it and pause, or do you pull it and blaze away? What if the act of pulling the gun stops the threat in its tracks...is following through then excessive and unnecessary? It's an interesting dilemma and, as Ektarr says, "Everyone's allowed to piss on his own shoes", right or wrong. I know which side I'd choose, intellectually, but I think the circumstances will ultimately dictate.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  5. Thumbs up

    I feel that just showing a weapon would deter a lot of robbery atempts, but you have to be willing to shoot if attack continues.

  6. #15
    I'd like to know exactly how the term potential attacker is defined. Just what criteria must be present to justify my saying, "I'm armed. Leave me alone," or my calling the attention of the "potential attacker" to the butt of my pistol? This particular area is to me among the most difficult the CCW person faces.

    As a sports official, I've been threatened more than once by hotheaded players and spectators. If, after the game, a couple of mouthy guys follow me to the parking lot, when do they become "potential attackers"?

    Ektarr asks, "What if the act of pulling the gun stops the threat in its tracks?"

    I would say, "Then you cannot legally shoot." To take an extreme example, suppose two burly thugs follow you down a dark, empty street after midnight. They close the distance on you fast, and then you hear from close behind, "Give it up, mutha****a." You turn with pistol drawn, and both thugs freeze and back off. I would say you were justified in drawing your weapon but would not be justified in shooting.

    Suppose they both charge you and you fire and drop the first one. Then the second one turns tail and runs. If the threat is now over, you can't shoot any more, at either one of the poor oppressed victims of society.

  7. #16
    Sounds like a good plan to me. I'd rather try to scare them off with it first, but if I need to shoot I will.

  8. #17

    Common Sense Law

    This is a good common sense law that affirms the right of people to do things like making a citizen's arrest. You can't shoot someone who pulls a knife and drops it when you pull your gun, but does that mean he should just be allowed to run away from commiting a crime? (That's a rhetorical question people)

    We need to remember all of the rights we actually have to use our power in this country.

  9. #18
    ". . . but does that mean he should just be allowed to run away from committing a crime?"

    I suspect that the answer to this question depends on individual state laws and even more on political considerations. My own lawyer was a county prosecutor in New Jersey, and he told me that if a little old lady shoots a burly thug who broke into her house at 3 in the morning, it doesn't matter what the law says or even whether the thug was unarmed—you have no chance whatsoever of getting a conviction.

    Back in the 1970s, a Trenton store owner heard a woman screaming in a nearby alley, grabbed his pistol, and shot her rapist dead. The store owner was prosecuted, but the jury acquitted him after deliberating for only a few minutes. The jury also gave him a standing ovation.

    At one time, police officers could legally shoot a fleeing felon. (Look at the old TV shows: after "Halt!" and a warning shot, pow!, and down goes the bad guy, who was usually halfway over a fence.) Of course, in the days before seven beefed-up guys were assigned to wrestle a drunken wife-beater to the ground, a lone responding officer had to subdue a perp in whatever way he could. It was often by methods that would horrify today's touchy-feely judges.

    I recently read a newspaper account of the capture of some gangsters in New York State in the 1940s. After a car chase, the gangsters were cornered and pulled guns on police. After a brief gunfight, the outnumbered hoodlums surrendered. The picture in the paper the next day showed several officers, each posing for the camera with his hand grasping the collar of a disheveled thug who obviously hadn't been handled with kid gloves. The caption of the photo noted the "two-fisted lawmen" who had made the arrests.

    Ah, the good old days.

  10. With all the lawyers out there, if I pull my weapon I will use deadly force. Only living victims can sue.

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by SigControl2A View Post
    With all the lawyers out there, if I pull my weapon I will use deadly force. Only living victims can sue.
    Not true at all!! The family of the person who you shoot and kill can and most times do sue you. What do you mean by living victims? If someone gets to the point that you feel the need to use deadly force on them to save your live. THEY ARE NOT A VICTIM!!!

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. List Of Minnesota Gun Ranges
    By lukem in forum Minnesota Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-13-2016, 11:49 AM
  2. BATFE: Any Semi-Auto Can Be A Machine Gun
    By Oregon Vet in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-03-2012, 07:23 AM
  3. Gun bans - Don't think it can happen, watch
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 191
    Last Post: 08-24-2010, 03:28 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-16-2010, 09:35 PM
  5. Credit Card Bill Forces Dems to Take Vote on Gun Rights
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 10:49 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast