Gun owners living in pro-gun States (They Agree with the 2nd Amendment)

Discussion in 'Politics | Firearms | Religion' started by 95CobraR, Apr 3, 2019.

  1. Gregs24

    Gregs24 Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    Greg
    Vehicle(s):
    Mondeo 240 Ecoboost Vignale, Lotus Evora S, Mustang V8 GT
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK & Charente FR
    Posts:
    354
    Likes Received:
    108
    0   0   0
    Re (1) - Here in the UK we have the ability to move forward as we have done since George III
    Re (2) - Not many here in the UK believe a 'trade deal' with the US is ever going to benefit anybody other than the US. Hope you enjoy your now much more expensive Scotch Whisky (Blame your president)
     
  2. Caballus

    Caballus Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    GT350
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Location:
    Europe
    Posts:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    575
    0   0   0
    Matter of interpretation--moved forward or got left behind (HK, Ireland, India, AUS, CAN, NZ, SA...oh, but Falklands are still there)?
    So much to offer..."Scotch" Whisky vs. Mustangs. Only time will tell whether Scotland (and Northern Ireland) will stick around to share in the post-Brexit isolation. But back to guns, knives...and sheep...
     
  3. Norm Peterson

    Norm Peterson corner barstool sitter

    First Name:
    Norm
    Vehicle(s):
    '08 GT #85, '10 LGT, '01 20AE
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Location:
    On a corner barstool not too far from I-95
    Posts:
    5,797
    Likes Received:
    2,203
    0   0   0
    At some times in some places, yes. Most times in most places in terms of the gun debate it is not.

    Perception (based on sensationalistic news reporting) is not the same thing as everyday up-close-and-personal reality.


    It's hard to avoid being sensitive when others imply that ownership of a gun means that a violent criminal nature is also present. Guilt from a baseless assumption, might as well be because you don't like what I look like or the clothes I wear.


    Norm
     
    Strokerswild likes this.
  4. OP
    OP
    95CobraR

    95CobraR Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    Doc
    Vehicle(s):
    2019 Shelby GT350 K1868
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Location:
    Sandy Springs, GA
    Posts:
    355
    Likes Received:
    224
    Garage Profiles:
    7
    Occupation:
    private investor
    0   0   0
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

    I will protect this Right with my money and my soul. I will never negotiate.

    I have a few old guns. I have a few old lever-action rifles with some old revolvers.
    M19-3.JPG

    These are all vintage revolvers.
     
    Timeless, Sound Wave and Clump like this.
  5. Shifting_Gears

    Shifting_Gears Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    2016 Mustang GT
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Location:
    Florida
    Posts:
    654
    Likes Received:
    375
    Occupation:
    Ops Management
    0   0   0
    Here’s a question for castle doctrine state residents:

    Do you think someone vandalizing your car is a reason to potentially kill someone?

    Example: you’re inside, your car is in your driveway (let’s exclude garages because we can assume breaking and entering is required). You hear something rustle in the night. You grab your gun and walk outside to see someone in progress of breaking into your vehicle. They don’t charge you and don’t produce a weapon. What’s your move?

    Again, not referring to someone breaking and entering your home (garage included). I say that’s fair game for lethal defense because anyone doing that may be looking to achieve their mission by any means necessary.
     
  6. HoosierDaddy

    HoosierDaddy Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    2016 GT Premium PP and a few others
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2016
    Location:
    Winchestertonfieldville (ok, Scottsdale), AZ
    Posts:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    Rating:
    100%
    2   0   0
    I'm not seeing what you would do. That's how to start a conversation.
     
    Timeless and Hack like this.
  7. Shifting_Gears

    Shifting_Gears Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    2016 Mustang GT
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Location:
    Florida
    Posts:
    654
    Likes Received:
    375
    Occupation:
    Ops Management
    0   0   0
    I wouldn’t shoot someone over property that didn’t involve breaking and entering into a living space or pose an immenent threat to my life. That’s what insurance is for.
     
    Timeless likes this.
  8. Clump

    Clump Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    2019GT Premium PP2
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    Posts:
    295
    Likes Received:
    212
    0   0   0
    This. I might hold them at gunpoint though, but would not fire if they ran.
     
    Blue Moon likes this.
  9. Shifting_Gears

    Shifting_Gears Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    2016 Mustang GT
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Location:
    Florida
    Posts:
    654
    Likes Received:
    375
    Occupation:
    Ops Management
    0   0   0
    Agreed. The time they’re being held until arrest would hopefully send a clear message to not bother me again.
     
    Blue Moon likes this.
  10. Blue Moon

    Blue Moon Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    17 Ecoboost Perform Pack Std
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2017
    Location:
    Maine, or eastern Canada
    Posts:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    929
    0   0   0
    Agreed that opening fire in that circumstance would be overkill. But to play devil's advocate, they're on your own personal property uninvited, even if they're not technically breaking and entering.
     
    Shifting_Gears likes this.
  11. fiveoboy01

    fiveoboy01 Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    2017 LB GT 400A
    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Posts:
    264
    Likes Received:
    154
    0   0   0
    Shooting someone over property will in most cases get you sent to prison.

    In the situation given, being quite vague on specifics, no I am not going to shoot the person. If they charge me or produce a weapon, then I am in fear of bodily injury or death and will defend myself.

    My actions in that situation - attempt to hold him there under the threat of being shot. If he runs, then he runs. I'm sure as shit not shooting him in the back.
     
  12. OP
    OP
    95CobraR

    95CobraR Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    Doc
    Vehicle(s):
    2019 Shelby GT350 K1868
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Location:
    Sandy Springs, GA
    Posts:
    355
    Likes Received:
    224
    Garage Profiles:
    7
    Occupation:
    private investor
    0   0   0
    The answer is Hell No.

    You did not understand that a guy needs to have a situation that threatens his life, his families life, or the threat of violence to him, his family, or anyone in his business.

    I'd fire a round into his knee cap which will stop him quickly.

    Any misdemeanor offense can be solved by the local police and the insurance company.

    What are you going to do if a gang knocked down the front door of your home? Would you fight or just call 911 and hope for the best?
     
  13. Shifting_Gears

    Shifting_Gears Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    2016 Mustang GT
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Location:
    Florida
    Posts:
    654
    Likes Received:
    375
    Occupation:
    Ops Management
    0   0   0
    It was a hypothetical question, I understand completely there has to be an immenent threat to ones life to utilize lethal force. However, we both know there are trigger happy super pro 2nd amendment, maybe anti minority or anti anyone “stepping on my land” that will claim such circumstances when in reality a threat was avoidable or falsified because it’s a chance to be a “hero”. When in reality the Castile doctrine is more so meet threat with equal force, applied to your property.

    If you shoot someone breaking into a vehicle on your property and they’re unarmed, it may be hard to prove you were in immenent danger and then you’re on the wrong end of the law. People have been in this situation when they were defending themselves outside the scope of legality and with the criminal rights in place in current times, it’s far from unfathomable.

    If a gang knocks down my door I’m doing anything required to stay alive. Shoot, stab with a fork, kick in the nuts.. whatever. Anyone who thinks 911 is the only way to save your life in a situation where you’re in direct harm isn’t living in today’s reality.
     
  14. OP
    OP
    95CobraR

    95CobraR Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    Doc
    Vehicle(s):
    2019 Shelby GT350 K1868
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Location:
    Sandy Springs, GA
    Posts:
    355
    Likes Received:
    224
    Garage Profiles:
    7
    Occupation:
    private investor
    0   0   0
    I said that I shoot them first in the leg.

    I am not going to my kitchen to find a knife, I have already wounded them. Most criminals are not hanging around for the second shot from a fully armed dude.

    Your "trigger happy super pro 2nd amendment, maybe anti minority or anti anyone “stepping on my land” that will claim.." is just a thing invented by the anti-gun media. It's worthless when criminals that have no right to own a gun will attack you in your your home, your car, or your business.

    You should study the Castle Rule with a hint of more personal family protection. It's the Law.
     
    Shifting_Gears likes this.
  15. Shifting_Gears

    Shifting_Gears Well-Known Member

    Vehicle(s):
    2016 Mustang GT
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Location:
    Florida
    Posts:
    654
    Likes Received:
    375
    Occupation:
    Ops Management
    0   0   0
    I think you’re taking my posts as an attack against your beliefs. They aren’t. I’m just curious what other’s beliefs are.

    Shooting someone is shooting someone. Leg can be just as deadly as a chest shot. In the eyes of the law, you drew a weapon and fired. It has to be justified. My question is can you really justify shooting someone over PROPERTY (not inside a home, occupied vehicle, etc.) My point is it could cause implications and those will vary based on your state laws and the deciding factors of if there was truly an immediate and grave threat to your safety in that moment. By pulling the trigger you are now subject to the judgement of the law and circumstances, testament of the perp (assuming they’re alive), etc.

    I don’t agree that my statement is anti gun propoganda. I agree it’s proported as such by the media to sway anti-gun support, but the subject is very much true. I am for responsible gun ownership but to say there aren’t legal firearm owners that would be more likely to “exercise” their rights for self protection in situations where it may not be justified is false. That’s why people get imprisoned for shooting people that are fleeing vs attacking, are unarmed, or are overzealous with the self protection claims.

    And yes, the castle doctrine.. stand your ground, exists for personal protection of self and property. However, you have a duty to retreat before lethal force is utilized. Thats why if someone is intruding to your home or an occupied vehicle, use of lethal force is far less likely to be found unacceptable by law. If you shoot someone for stepping on your land or catch them busting a window out of your empty car, it’s a different ballgame.

    I’m not arguing the self protection aspect. Just property. Property can be replaced, people can’t. No matter how much of a piece of shit someone who destroys or steals others’ property is, it’s not my job to punish them by taking their life or gravely injuring them if I, or my family is not in danger. On top of that, the potential legal implications are something I rather not deal with.
     
Loading...

Share This Page