# Why We Fear Them, More and More



## imp (Aug 6, 2015)

*"Stop the Madness! Police Officer Pulls Gun on Man in His Own Driveway: ‘Put It on YouTube, I Don’t Care’"
*
http://www.lovebscott.com/news/stop...is-own-driveway-put-it-on-youtube-i-dont-care


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 6, 2015)

Wow, what is happening here? When law enforcement behaves in a violent, out of control manner, what happens next?


----------



## imp (Aug 6, 2015)

*"When law enforcement behaves in a violent, out of control manner, what happens next?"

*What happens next, ma'am, is that L.E. becomes emboldened, as it has the last decade or two, and, supported by high court decisions in their favor, we revert to a society that Mr. Hitler referred to as a "safe" society, for the "first time in history"!    Am so glad you saw fit to become repulsed by this report. As the cops become increasingly heavy-handed, more folks of a less than tolerant attitude become pissed-off beyond their limit to endure, and go out to start killing. Saw it again today, was it in Tennessee?    imp


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 6, 2015)

Can anyone say jackboot society? Who are the good guys???? The lines are blurring.....as always, violence begets more violence. The politics of rage terrify me. Homeland insecurity here we come.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 7, 2015)

Try living _without_ the cops to protect you - see how long you last.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

So who protects us from the cops?


----------



## Debby (Aug 7, 2015)

Great photo QS.  And you are right Phil, we can't live without police because the crooks would run amok, BUT at the same time, they have to be called to account when they misbehave and to often that doesn't seem to happen when you hear about those situations.

Mind you, we had a Kelowna cop who was seen by a citizen to fail to signal a turn and was driving while looking at his computer screen instead of eyes on the road.  When the citizen pulled up alongside and gave him a 'WTF man' shrug of the shoulders and pointing down at the seat beside the cop, he was pulled over and verbally harassed and held at roadside for about ten minutes with the threat that they were waiting for a 'specialist' to join them to look over their vehicle for infractions.  Long story short, the cop finally let him go I guess with the advice probably to drive safely (and mind his own business).

So the guy and his girlfriend who was driving, didn't complain to the detachment but somehow the cops did see the young fellows Facebook page where he'd posted the video that he'd been secretly recording, of the incident and I believe the cop is now being investigated.  Not quite the same calibre of confrontation as we've been seeing of late in your country with cops shooting people, but still, one more example of a cop with a really rotten attitude about his own bad behaviour.

But you know folks, what I took away from that (besides you have a right to be nervous if the cops pull you over these days) is that your Facebook/Twitter accounts are being monitored to some degree even at the local police level.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So who protects us from the cops?



We do - with powerful, unlicensed handguns and full-auto rifles with extended clips.


----------



## BobF (Aug 7, 2015)

Confused a bit with these descriptions.   I was thinking that the ones attempting to enter this persons home were not actually police at all.   I think they were of a 'detective' type agency attempting to make an arrest but at the wrong address.   A policeman's home.   So we have a self made 'protector' actually attempting to arrest a true protector.   Much of the facts still lie behind the TV camera and need exposed.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> We do - with powerful, unlicensed handguns and full-auto rifles with extended clips.



That's a joke..... Right?


----------



## Jackie22 (Aug 7, 2015)

I've said it before....there are too many police that are ex military.


----------



## BobF (Aug 7, 2015)

*I've said it before....there are too many police that are ex military. 				
*
That just describes those most willing to bring peace and safety to the rest of us.   Sure don't want only desk top police working for us do we?    We need those willing to face some problems and help bring peace to our communities.   Desk top whiner's just can not do the job.    We need those willing to work with folks and willing to face occasional danger to do the job properly.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So who protects us from the cops?



cop has 2 guns, wanna bet the guy on the wall is undercover and this photo is a poke


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> I've said it before....there are too many police that are ex military.



until folks are willing to pay for graduate counsellors to be cops your lucky to get military, as you are unwilling to take your own self defense in hand -- you get what you deserve


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

There was 80,000 SWAT call outs in the U.S. Last year. Does that mean the crime rate is up?


----------



## Shirley (Aug 7, 2015)

When I clicked on the link in Imp's original post I got the red screen from my McAfee security. *​"Warning! Trouble ahead! Are you sure you want to go there?* That means there is a virus, malware or something dreadful there.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

Actually... no the crime rate is DOWN..

http://lawstreetmedia.com/crime-america-2015-top-10-dangerous-cities-200000-2/

Detroit... Down 2.5% from 2014

Oakland California   down 1%

Memphis  down 10%

Cleveland..  increased due to robberies, but murder down

Baltimore  down <1%

Milwaukee... moved up in list

Birmingham... down 11%

Newark..  up

Kansas city  down. <1%


AND... for the city people LOVE to cite as so violent... Chicago... Crime down a whopping 15% at the end of 2014.  reaching historic lows.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Crime-Reaches-Historic-Low-in-2014-287282501.html


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

rt3 said:


> until folks are willing to pay for graduate counsellors to be cops your lucky to get military, as you are unwilling to take your own self defense in hand -- you get what you deserve



Are you saying that if someone does not "pack" they deserve to be victims of crime?   

Here's what people "deserve" from the police.   They deserve to be SERVED and PROTECTED...


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

Don't care if you pack or if your a victim 
police have no duty to protect and serve, Supreme Court ruled on that years ago. See if you can find it on a cop car. 
We can thank Obama forthe statistics you have quoted, as the number of guns in private hands have doubled since his crowning, and he has helped arm the sheep more than Clintons. Concealed permits have tripled especially among women. 
Lucky you live in "castle" suburbs. Have a cop in for coffee and thank them.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> That's a joke..... Right?



Yes and no.

If you're a dyed-in-the-wool crazy with a subterranean safe-room filled with high-powered firearms and every police incident like this is a sign of the End Times, then no, this isn't a joke.

But for us "normal" people - yes, it's a joke.

Yes, we should be able to be armed - but if it ever came down to "us" verse "them" I'm afraid it would be a zero-sum game - everyone would be gone.

The only apparent way I can see for this to change is to figure out a way to police the police. Not easy, and I can't see the police liking it much, but that's what I see.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Don't care if you pack or if your a victim
> police have no duty to protect and serve, Supreme Court ruled on that years ago. See if you can find it on a cop car.
> We can thank Obama forthe statistics you have quoted, as the number of guns in private hands have doubled since his crowning, and he has helped arm the sheep more than Clintons. Concealed permits have tripled especially among women.
> Lucky you live in "castle" suburbs. Have a cop in for coffee and thank them.



Yes they DO....  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_protect_and_to_serve


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

Police want more crime because it's a business, they have a monopoly on enforcement. The stats QS gave were cooked. 

Google chicago crime statistics.   Heyjackass.com


baltimore same thing, murder up. Police stats showing lower rates.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

Good move to California if you even remotely believe this


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

Yeah.... Heyjackass.com    Fitting you quoted that one...


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)




----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)




----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 7, 2015)




----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

Did you look at the year makes of the autos indicating when the photos were taken and how old they are?  Some photo detective you'd make.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 7, 2015)

Shirley said:


> When I clicked on the link in Imp's original post I got the red screen from my McAfee security. *​"Warning! Trouble ahead! Are you sure you want to go there?* That means there is a virus, malware or something dreadful there.



Shirley, I have Norton and they deem that site as safe.

All I can say is that we have many more good cops than bad cops out there, and many more good people than bad people.  As long as that stays true, and it should, we'll be doing alright.  The bad cops and the criminals need to be dealt with, that's for sure.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)




----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me to see this in the cities with the highest crime rates.
as I recall several suburbs outside of Chicago recently passed to gun laws against the Supreme Court ruling allowing private ownership. Their reason was " we can pass these because it makes us feel safer".  Hope you feel safe


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

\
2013


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 7, 2015)




----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


>



did you notice this was a plastic model sold in hobby shops?


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> View attachment 20182



circa late 80's before the Supreme Court ruling


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


>



legit late model Explorer


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

2014


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

From the Chicago area. 

Like Bloomberg said, of the NyPd , " he had the 5th largest army in the world"


are are they protecting and serving?

still doesn't change the Supreme Court ruling


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 7, 2015)

Communism equals socialism? HaHaHaHaHaHa! My laugh for the day!


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Communism equals socialism? HaHaHaHaHaHa! My laugh for the day!




Don't even try to explain the difference.. it won't be believed or understood


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 7, 2015)

I won't QS. For some, even the thought of socialism suspends all logic, yet fascism is ignored?? Hmmm.


----------



## imp (Aug 7, 2015)

*"I believe the cop is now being investigated."

*But, "what if....."?  What if the cop is as truly unsavory as he seemed over a trivial matter, but more so when singled out for commission of an infraction? What if the cop is of a vengeant nature? That seems likely, given the nature of the initial incident. Enraged by the Facebook reveal, what might ensue? Worse yet, what if?..... fellow officers and perhaps officials support him in his vengeance? 

We had a term often used for things getting "out of hand'....."Snowballing"...    imp


----------



## imp (Aug 7, 2015)

*"The only apparent way I can see for this to change is to figure out a way to police the police"
*
But how to "police" the police who police the lowest police? Seems to me, that belief in the Founding Father's definition of "Militia" as being the people at large, is supportive of "policing the police", is it not?    imp


----------



## imp (Aug 7, 2015)

The reference to "protect" actually was a decision by SCOTUS which was worded, as best I can recall it: "....No Law Enforcement Agent or Agency in the United States is bound legally to provide protection to any one citizen". 

The aim was to eliminate litigation against L.E. for failure to protect, on an individual basis, I think. Thus, an even newer "monkey-wrench" may be thrown in: Are Firefighters "Law Enforcement"? If you say "No", look at the warnings and limitations posted publicly regarding allowed number of patrons within publicly accessed places. Or, the "Fire Protection" requirements imposed upon such places. For example, the ownership of a restaurant not having the required fire protection devices over grills, may be held liable for such omission by the Fire Official.     imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

imp said:


> *"The only apparent way I can see for this to change is to figure out a way to police the police"
> *
> But how to "police" the police who police the lowest police? Seems to me, that belief in the Founding Father's definition of "Militia" as being the people at large, is supportive of "policing the police", is it not?    imp



Certainly NOT with marauding  bands of civilians, armed to the teeth,  roaming the streets to police the police..   Whatever could go wrong?  

The best way would be for body cams on every cop.. and a fine for conveniently turning them off.   Should a police shooting happen, it should be reviewed by a Special Prosecutor.. not in any way connected with the jurisdiction of the accused cop.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Communism equals socialism? HaHaHaHaHaHa! My laugh for the day!



Dont think Dreyfus mom said they were equal, just one had better doughnuts. I'm sure she had s lot more insight however. She was an official party member of one party and investigated by the FBI during the Vietnam protest era. 

Differences are taught in any college level sociology or Econ class. No magic knowledge.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Certainly NOT with marauding  bands of civilians, armed to the teeth,  roaming the streets to police the police..   Whatever could go wrong?
> 
> The best way would be for body cams on every cop.. and a fine for conveniently turning them off.   Should a police shooting happen, it should be reviewed by a Special Prosecutor.. not in any way connected with the jurisdiction of the accused cop.



Most places do have review committees made up of ordinary citizens, who turn over their findings to a committee. 
You should join one.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

yes the term is specific to legal liability, thus now the term to serve and protect means what ever anybody wants it to.

good thing those cars have to serve and protect painted on them, can you imagine how bad the crime would be if it wasn't


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

There is an old saying... A prosecutor can convince a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants to.   It also means he can get a obviously guilty cop not indicted.   WHY?  because a grand jury basically follows the prosecutor's instructions.   Since Prosecutors depend on the testimony of police in cases they want to win, there is a built in conflict of interest when the prosecutor handles a police shooting.  Therefore. a SPECIAL prosecutor, one who has no cases to try in that jurisdiction needs to bring Cop shootings to the Grand Jury.   That is the only way to insure that the verdict be fair.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

Yes there are a lot of old sayings and most of them were made by hams. The conflict of interests exists in all areas. Sometimes the existing administration just wants to throw somebody under the bus to reduce the stress. Special prosecutors are good if somebody wants to pay the bill. It's not a perfect world.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Don't even try to explain the difference.. it won't be believed or understood



Lol, I get it. You have been called a communist so many times its personnel.

i have a good Asian friend who during the Irag war, wore a sweat shirt that said, "no really I'm Mexican "


i guess Lenin was right when he said to Rasputin, "fate does have a sense of humor"  eh tovarisch?


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 7, 2015)

imp said:


> *"The only apparent way I can see for this to change is to figure out a way to police the police"
> *
> But how to "police" the police who police the lowest police? Seems to me, that belief in the Founding Father's definition of "Militia" as being the people at large, is supportive of "policing the police", is it not?    imp



Not sure about that, Imp. I thought the militia was for more conventional enemies - that the founding fathers hadn't counted on having to police any police. 

There are supposedly Internal Affairs divisions who are scrupulously clean - their job is to police the lowest ones.


----------



## imp (Aug 7, 2015)

*"Marauding Bands...."*



QuickSilver said:


> Certainly NOT with marauding  bands of civilians, armed to the teeth,  roaming the streets to police the police..   Whatever could go wrong?
> 
> The best way would be for body cams on every cop.. and a fine for conveniently turning them off.   Should a police shooting happen, it should be reviewed by a Special Prosecutor.. not in any way connected with the jurisdiction of the accused cop.



QS, certainly marauding bands of civilians would be a preface to dissolution of the country, no? But are you ignoring the fact that there exists in America, a very, very strong "Gun Culture", the members of which number in the millions, their firearms in the hundreds of millions. The fact of the existence of an already-armed civilian populace ought to dispel concerns of them joining the ranks of the criminal element, by marauding in the streets, don't you think? They exist, so do their firearms, they go about their business, along with that part of the society choosing to not be armed.    imp


----------



## rt3 (Aug 7, 2015)

imp said:


> QS, certainly marauding bands of civilians would be a preface to dissolution of the country, no? But are you ignoring the fact that there exists in America, a very, very strong "Gun Culture", the members of which number in the millions, their firearms in the hundreds of millions. The fact of the existence of an already-armed civilian populace ought to dispel concerns of them joining the ranks of the criminal element, by marauding in the streets, don't you think? They exist, so do their firearms, they go about their business, along with that part of the society choosing to not be armed.    imp



Well said.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 7, 2015)

Guess it depends on what sort of America you want to live in..


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 7, 2015)

Apparently the spectre of High Noon is alive and well, scares the bejuices out of this Canadianyr. Eek!


----------



## BobF (Aug 7, 2015)

What has done the US well for over 200 years should be good for quite a few more years.   Also in the hundreds would be nice.


----------



## Don M. (Aug 7, 2015)

Gun violence is alive and well in the U.S.  The vast majority of it takes place in the inner cities...among those in the drug and street gang cultures.  In the past couple of years, the media has erupted over reportedly unarmed Blacks being killed by cops...yet when the circumstances are fully revealed, failure to halt and obey the cops instructions seems to be the catalyst that causes these confrontations to escalate.  At the same time, when the cop kills a White person under similar circumstances, the media is strangely quiet.  How many have heard of this incident??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

Insofar as condemning all cops for the actions of a very few, and castigating legal responsible gun owners, it is wise to remember that "When danger is only Seconds away, the Police are only Minutes Away".  

Increasing crime...home invasions/burglaries, etc., was one of the reasons we moved away from the city, and took up the country life.  Out here, virtually everyone owns firearms and were anyone stupid enough to try to break into someones house out here, and the homeowner was home, there is a very good chance that this would be their Last criminal act.  Consequently, our local weekly police report usually consists of a couple of DUI's, perhaps a petty theft, an occasional traffic accident, and the invariable barking dog keeping someone awake at night.


----------



## imp (Aug 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Guess it depends on what sort of America you want to live in..



Collectively, we all must live in the America presented before us. We can change some things, others we cannot. Individually, we may each live our lives in disagreement with the mores and values of others, each side of the conflicting opinions having merit of their own.

Why can't we all live together?    imp


----------



## Don M. (Aug 7, 2015)

> Why can't we all live together?    imp



That's Easy....we can't live together because it is NOT in the best interests of the Oligarchs who increasing run this...and most other nations...to allow us to do so.  So long as they can keep the Liberals and Conservatives hurling insults at each other, the Oligarchy can continue to have its way.  If the political extremists could learn to sit down together and find common solutions, they might do something as drastic as eliminating 99% of the IRS tax dodges and loopholes that allow the Ultra wealthy to continue to widen the disparity in income, and cement their power over the nation. 

People are their own worst enemies.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 7, 2015)

The distract the "peasants" ruse? Works every time. The old adage, the more things change, the more they remain the same, is as apt as ever. The players change but not the game.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 7, 2015)

imp said:


> They exist, so do their firearms, they go about their business, along with that part of the society choosing to not be armed.    imp



True.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

WEll... maybe the gun culture is winning.. so why fight it..  Thinking of getting a glock and carrying it in my purse..  

Do you like the all pink?   Or maybe the two tone black and pink..   I can't decide.   Do they come in other colors?


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 8, 2015)

Ewwwwwww.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 8, 2015)

Perhaps we should have matching perfumed  bullets? What is next, designer blood spatter?


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

I understand they come with lots of accessories...  I always need to make sure I am well dressed..   Maybe just a basic Black.... with a touch of pink?


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

OR... one of these?   So many choices....I simply cannot decide...


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 8, 2015)

Gotta have the knife in red to match my hair, and the blood, of course.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 8, 2015)

Why choose, buy them all. A gun for every (homicidal/paranoid) mood. Found at your nearest Psychopaths R Us.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

I'm leaning toward basic black... and dressing it up with different colored clips and accessories..  You can't go wrong with basic black..can you.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 8, 2015)

Can you buy them with a selection of appropriate sound effects? You know, pleading, screaming, with a side of "make my day?"


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

Here's my theme song!!


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

Or this one...


----------



## rt3 (Aug 8, 2015)

While reductio ad absurdum examples are fun, it would be best if you two went to a shooting school so you wouldn't hurt yourselves. On the other hand, while you two are dancing arm and arm through the school door singing Yellowbrick road, it would be amusing to see the look on some of the other students faces to see people so far away from their daily envoirment.
the irony here is that the easiest gun to learn and use is the ar15, the glock would probably pose some dexterity issues.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

rt3 said:


> While reductio ad absurdum examples are fun, it would be best if you two went to a shooting school so you wouldn't hurt yourselves. On the other hand, while you two are dancing arm and arm through the school door singing Yellowbrick road, it would be amusing to see the look on some of the other students faces to see people so far away from their daily envoirment.
> the irony here is that the easiest gun to learn and use is the ar15, the glock would probably pose some dexterity issues.



Why should we?   It's not required...


----------



## rt3 (Aug 8, 2015)

Please don't be so obvious in your ignorance of the laws. Purse carry will require you take a course before even getting the gun. That is if you even pass the BATF 4733 forms. After passing all these you will be required to pass a demonstration of your shooting ability which is really more of a safety test. Surely being the law abiding citizen you claim to be, you won't be carrying without the proper paper work. 
Sorry Shalimar none of the fashion options are open to you. Your country doesn't allow you to own any of this stuff. Well maybe the hat.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

Ok... so I'll carry it on my hip....  I'll bet I can coordinate the holster to my outfits...   lol!!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 8, 2015)

As a responsible gun owner in the United States, I have to say that I can understand those who are against guns and respect them in their opinions and decisions.  I absolutely agree that all of those people should never own a gun, if they are fearful of them or uncomfortable with them.  However, I am mature enough not to mock them for their choices and show them respect, as they do not have to agree with me to avoid criticism.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

Just havin' a little fun SB....   I'll go sit in the corner now..  lol!


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 8, 2015)

SB, my intent was satire/irony, a Canadian failing, I am told. I apologise if I hurt the feelings of responsible people.


----------



## Don M. (Aug 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Just havin' a little fun SB....   I'll go sit in the corner now..  lol!



Gun ownership is Not a laughing matter.  When a person decides to acquire a firearm, they Must assume the responsibility to learn how to use it, and take the necessary cautions to insure that it is Never used in a questionable manner.  The worst gun owner, IMO, is the person who buys a pistol because they become paranoid from watching all the bad news on TV, and then sticks it in their bedroom nightstand without going through some good training.  That is the type of person who eventually shoots themselves, or has some young child visiting who finds the gun, and makes the evening news with yet another tragic accidental shooting.  

I have been around firearms most of my life...and own several....from a nice Ruger .22 pistol, to a Browning BAR 300 Mag, that can reach out and "touch" someone nearly a mile away.  Nearly all of them are secured in a safe location, and only taken out for occasional cleaning and test firing.  I have even quit hunting, as I enjoy watching the deer more than hunting anymore.  I do have a Tec 9 assault pistol, with a 32 round clip, in a hidden location where the wife or I can get to it quickly should we ever be subjected to some attempted criminal actions.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 8, 2015)

Don M. said:


> .  When a person decides to acquire a firearm, they Must assume the responsibility to learn how to use it, and take the necessary cautions to insure that it is Never used in a questionable manner.  The worst gun owner, IMO, is the person who buys a pistol because they become paranoid from watching all the bad news on TV, and then sticks it in their bedroom nightstand without going through some good training.  That is the type of person who eventually shoots themselves, or has some young child visiting who finds the gun, and makes the evening news with yet another tragic accidental shooting.



I completely agree, well said.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Gun ownership is Not a laughing matter.  When a person decides to acquire a firearm, they Must assume the responsibility to learn how to use it, and take the necessary cautions to insure that it is Never used in a questionable manner.  The worst gun owner, IMO, is the person who buys a pistol because they become paranoid from watching all the bad news on TV, and then sticks it in their bedroom nightstand without going through some good training.  That is the type of person who eventually shoots themselves, or has some young child visiting who finds the gun, and makes the evening news with yet another tragic accidental shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been around firearms most of my life...and own several....from a nice Ruger .22 pistol, to a Browning BAR 300 Mag, that can reach out and "touch" someone nearly a mile away.  Nearly all of them are secured in a safe location, and only taken out for occasional cleaning and test firing.  I have even quit hunting, as I enjoy watching the deer more than hunting anymore.  I do have a Tec 9 assault pistol, with a 32 round clip, in a hidden location where the wife or I can get to it quickly should we ever be subjected to some attempted criminal actions.




All kidding aside...  I wouldn't own a freakin' gun if someone bought me a solid gold one.   That's how I feel about it..  save your lectures.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> All kidding aside...  I wouldn't own a freakin' gun if someone bought me a solid gold one.   That's how I feel about it..  save your lectures.


Wasn't that a James Bond movie? Somebody with a golden gun. I don't think a solid gun would shoot very well. Don't think Illinois had or will ever have open constitutional carry so your decision opting out is a good one.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 8, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> SB, my intent was satire/irony, a Canadian failing, I am told. I apologise if I hurt the feelings of responsible people.


None hurt here, Canadians still can't carry.


----------



## BobF (Aug 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> All kidding aside...  I wouldn't own a freakin' gun if someone bought me a solid gold one.   That's how I feel about it..  save your lectures.



Those nicer talks by Don M and SeaBreeze are not just for you alone.   They are good reading for all interested.   Don't like them, don't read them.   No need to tell others to stop posting, just stop reading what you don't want to read.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 8, 2015)

rt3. Thank you for your concern re my safety around guns. Unfortunately, my discomfort is not accompanied by an ignorance of the mechanics of using one. You are
presuming an innocence I do not have. During one of the captive periods in my "childhood," I was encouraged to become quite proficient with gun use. Initially it was a BB, but progressed from there as I grew older. Paedophiles gotta have fun, you know. Legality was hardly an issue. Lol. I have stared down both ends of a gun, can't say I enjoyed it much. I hope your experience with firearms has been less traumatic than mine.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 8, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> rt3. Thank you for your concern re my safety around guns. Unfortunately, my discomfort is not accompanied by an ignorance of the mechanics of using one. You are
> presuming an innocence I do not have. During one of the captive periods in my "childhood," I was encouraged to become quite proficient with gun use. Initially it was a BB, but progressed from there as I grew older. Paedophiles gotta have fun, you know. Legality was hardly an issue. Lol. I have stared down both ends of a gun, can't say I enjoyed it much. I hope your experience with firearms has been less traumatic than mine.



i doubt if your skills in firearms precedes your writing skills, nor the levels reached in a good shooting school, and it is interesting to find you in the "outlaw" category. With this in mind, you certainly have a better feel for concealed carry than most Canadians, so it begs the question,  "how does it feel being made into an outlaw, by ridiculous gun laws, when as you said yourself legality was hardly an issue?


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 8, 2015)

Rt3 do you truly not understand my post, or are you without compassion for abused children? I was an outlaw, because I was forced against my will to play War Games for the amusement of wealthy paedophiles, for whom legality was meaningless. A form of human chess,if you will. You bet I was adept, nothing like real bullets to induce marksmanship. Such is the life of a child sex slave, sadly, one of many. Your response both puzzles and saddens me. I honour your innocence re such matters, but struggle with the rest.


----------



## imp (Aug 8, 2015)

*"....it would be best if you two went to a shooting school so you wouldn't hurt yourselves..."

*The chance of that happening is zero, and you know it!     imp


----------



## imp (Aug 8, 2015)

*One Fact Left Out!*



Don M. said:


> Gun ownership is Not a laughing matter.  When a person decides to acquire a firearm, they Must assume the responsibility to learn how to use it, and take the necessary cautions to insure that it is Never used in a questionable manner.  The worst gun owner, IMO, is the person who buys a pistol because they become paranoid from watching all the bad news on TV, and then sticks it in their bedroom nightstand without going through some good training.  That is the type of person who eventually shoots themselves, or has some young child visiting who finds the gun, and makes the evening news with yet another tragic accidental shooting.
> 
> I have been around firearms most of my life...and own several*....from a nice Ruger .22 pistol, to a Browning BAR 300 Mag, that can reach out and "touch" someone nearly a mile away.  Nearly all of them are secured in a safe location, and only taken out for occasional cleaning and test firing.  I have even quit hunting, as I enjoy watching the deer more than hunting anymore.  I do have a Tec 9 assault pistol, with a 32 round clip, in a hidden location where the wife or I can get to it quickly *should we ever be subjected to some attempted criminal actions.



You have failed in your mission here, by not including your street address!        imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

imp said:


> *"....it would be best if you two went to a shooting school so you wouldn't hurt yourselves..."
> 
> *The chance of that happening is zero, and you know it!     imp



Oh Puleeeze Imp... do try to keep up with the thread..


----------



## imp (Aug 8, 2015)

BobF said:


> Those nicer talks by Don M and SeaBreeze are not just for you alone.   They are good reading for all interested.   Don't like them, don't read them.   No need to tell others to stop posting, *just stop reading what you don't want to read*.



How, pray tell, can one know BEFORE they read it, that they do not want to read it??    imp


----------



## imp (Aug 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Oh Puleeeze Imp... do try to keep up with the thread..



I simply want to "defuse" dangerous situations, is all. (Or, provoke the guy, his call!)    imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

NO dangerous situations as far as I'm concerned IMP...


----------



## imp (Aug 8, 2015)

rt3 said:


> *None hurt here*, Canadians still can't carry.



It is to be suspected that the "responsible" people are those who run forums. You cannot think for a moment, can you, that suddenly gun-owning maniacs like me (or you) are "responsible people", can you?     imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

IMP...  at 10:30 PM... after a few glasses of wine...  I really have to tell you...  I don't give a crap..


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> IMP...  at 10:30 PM... after a few glasses of wine...  I really have to tell you...  I don't give a crap..



Merlot?  LOL


----------



## imp (Aug 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> IMP...  at 10:30 PM... after a few glasses of wine...  I really have to tell you...  I don't give a crap..



An old reprobate like me, for instance, can only respond to your allegations, with a MOST hearty, Gotta love ya, Q.S.!!     imp


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 9, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I apologise if I hurt the feelings of responsible people.





Don M. said:


> Gun ownership is Not a laughing matter.  When a person decides to acquire a firearm, they Must assume the responsibility to learn how to use it, and take the necessary cautions to insure that it is Never used in a questionable manner.





rt3 said:


> None hurt here, Canadians still can't carry.





imp said:


> It is to be suspected that the "responsible" people are those who run forums. You cannot think for a moment, can you, that suddenly gun-owning maniacs like me (or you) are "responsible people", can you?     imp



Imp, I assume you're referring to me in this thread, and if you are you have completely missed the point of everything said here about responsible gun owners, which include  Rt3, BobF, DonM and many others on this forum. They all 'got it'!  I certainly never insinuated that Rt3 is a maniac, nor that I was the only responsible gun owner here.   If I'm misunderstanding _your_ comment, please correct me.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 9, 2015)

Hearts go out to people who have been the victims of violence involving firearms. Especially Sandyhook and the theatre shootings.
appeal to emotion arguements are no more valid than straw man, or reductio ad. The is tool used by Bloomberg and Everytown ad nauseam, and should be recognized for what it is. The inability it provide causality. Gotta blame somephin.


----------

