Now if only they would get on the ball and pass the same law in Virginia.

I carry, but I don't drink when I do. Usually the wife and I flip a coin to determine who is the designated driver and carrier.

pALEPHx wrote:

They're doing the same thing in AZ. The regulation states that liquor may not be given to anyone with a firearm, but this is sorta complicated for the servers, seeing as how the weapons are already concealed.

AZ is an open carry state.

So is Virginia and open carry is mandatory anywhere with an on-site liquor license. But in AZ, isn't the regulation against "serving" alcohol, making it the servers fault? That's wrong.

Why can't they just make it Carry Under the Influence, just like driving? Same rules, same equipment, same punishment.

I prefer to rely on two big black dogs and a 12-gauge with birdshot for home defense.  Cuz yah know sheet rock doesn't offer much in the way of protection for you loved ones in the next room against that 30-cal round.

(the dogs have the run of the house and yard - all day, every day)

pALEPHx wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Because, you know, when a meth head comes slinking around and breaks a window, he deserves to be instantly aerated.

What do you do, make him a sandwich?

Oh, I dunno. When, in most cases, your simple appearance on the scene is generally enough to thwart most would-be robbers, I'd think a 'warning shot' from your average sidearm would be sufficient (minus the redoing of your own drywall after said shot). A taser would also do what was needed. I mean, why not merely 'incapacitate' rather than 'ventillate?' Is 'justifiable manslaughter' really worth all the paperwork? The obvious point here is that an AK-47 is literal overkill. I happen to prefer knives and, really, if someone bothered to show up here with a gun of any variety, they're frankly welcome to whatever of my crap they want. There's nothing of worth that's really portable.

Underlying all this, I think what really got me was that a great number of expo attendees didn't look as if they could feed their own children, yet it's appropriate to drop hundreds/thousands on multiple automatic weapons? Many of them, I also believe, were not just motivated by rumorz on teh Intarwebz from Obama's camp. Some people see the current economic crisis, among other 'signs,' as a harbinger of the complete meltdown of social order. These people are buying guns because they expect to have to not only defend themselves, or hunt, but also to expect lawlessness to compel them to wipe out half their neighborhoods to procure canned goods.

Well, for one thing, a dead guy can't sue you, later on.

Also, a dead guy can't testify when the family tries to sue you for wrongful death.

Always remember, shoot him in his chest, then one to the dome when he's down, then one in the ceiling. Then, simply repeat, "I fired a warning shot" (as you point to the roof) "but he just kept coming at me!".

No jail and you'll beat the family lawsuit, because, after all, you are the only one with the story to tell.

Don't see what the big deal is, the latest craze in my hometown is walking around wearing a loaded revolver and cowboy hat.  The police don't care and the sheriff encourages the locals to pack heat.  He claims that with all the citizens being armed it will make his job a lot easier.  A woman from Southern California who calls herself Mama Liberty started the craze a couple of years back and now it's a common scene there.  No one has been hurt and no one feels threatened, crime is down and the people are making a statement, who gives a shit?

GooberMcNutly wrote:

I love the concept of the "warning shot". Next you are going to tell me to "shoot the gun out of his hand" just like the do in all the 1950's westerns. Or fill my shotgun with rock salt. Or rack the shotgun a few times just to get his attention. Got any other great ideas?

The law provides no defense for a "warning shot" and any time you draw your gun it should be to deliver a killing shot in defense of human life. The do otherwise is "brandishing" and makes you the guilty party.

Wait, you mean Ptah might not know what he's talking about?!?

Color me shocked...

Dirckman wrote:

Don't see what the big deal is, the latest craze in my hometown is walking around wearing a loaded revolver and cowboy hat.  The police don't care and the sheriff encourages the locals to pack heat.  He claims that with all the citizens being armed it will make his job a lot easier.  A woman from Southern California who calls herself Mama Liberty started the craze a couple of years back and now it's a common scene there.  No one has been hurt and no one feels threatened, crime is down and the people are making a statement, who gives a shit?

Amen.

A gun is a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver.

Any of the 3 could be used to kill.

I don't see what all the hoopla is about.

a bunch of fuckin' hoople-heads, if you ask me.

pALEPHx wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Because, you know, when a meth head comes slinking around and breaks a window, he deserves to be instantly aerated.

What do you do, make him a sandwich?

Oh, I dunno. When, in most cases, your simple appearance on the scene is generally enough to thwart most would-be robbers, I'd think a 'warning shot' from your average sidearm would be sufficient (minus the redoing of your own drywall after said shot). A taser would also do what was needed. I mean, why not merely 'incapacitate' rather than 'ventillate?' Is 'justifiable manslaughter' really worth all the paperwork? The obvious point here is that an AK-47 is literal overkill. I happen to prefer knives and, really, if someone bothered to show up here with a gun of any variety, they're frankly welcome to whatever of my crap they want. There's nothing of worth that's really portable.

Underlying all this, I think what really got me was that a great number of expo attendees didn't look as if they could feed their own children, yet it's appropriate to drop hundreds/thousands on multiple automatic weapons? Many of them, I also believe, were not just motivated by rumorz on teh Intarwebz from Obama's camp. Some people see the current economic crisis, among other 'signs,' as a harbinger of the complete meltdown of social order. These people are buying guns because they expect to have to not only defend themselves, or hunt, but also to expect lawlessness to compel them to wipe out half their neighborhoods to procure canned goods.

No, gun owners don't plan to raid their neighbors' homes for canned goods; they're worried about securing their own homes against raids in the event that, say, a grinding economic meltdown drives/panics many citizens and non-citizens into violent lawlessness. The owners' fears are warranted: we have a MASSIVE, totally unserviceable national debt that's sitting there like a time bomb waiting to go off. Assuming the federal government doesn't confiscate most of our wealth first to cover deficit spending...when that debt bomb goes off, our country's going down big-time.  Might happen a year from now, might happen ten years from now, but it WILL happen; there's nothing to stop it from happening, save the aforementioned confiscation. Given our fiat currency standard, a loss of foreign and domestic confidence in the dollar would be all it takes to start a downward spiral of our currency. (China's already backing away from the dollar. Scary.) Who knows, we might experience a reenactment of the Weimar Republic's hyperinflation meltdown; the ingredients are all there. Nothing like paying a million or billion dollars for a loaf of bread! Worst-case scenario, we might be talking Dust Bowl levels of poverty across the nation. Think: "The Grapes of Wrath." BUT, unlike the America of the 1930s, we have neither the genteel, stoic society nor the domestic manufacturing base that would let us bounce back from a deep economic depression without violent social upheaval and profound infrastructure breakdowns. [See http://brillig.com/debt_clock/ and be horrified by the debt figures.]

Given a climate of financial uncertainty---current and future---we may not only need our own measures to combat crime, we may also need self-protection against the kind of tyrannical government that could arise from a new Great Depression or new Weimar Republic (the old Weimar Republic having ushered in the Nazi Party). Why SHOULDN'T the public be worried that gun-grabbing legislators will try to take away our sole means of personal self-defense? The massive surge in sales of guns and ammunition is the public's way of saying to overcontrolling legislators, "Keep your hands off of our ability to defend ourselves against criminals and despots." Don't expect those purchasers to meekly turn over their firearms to authorities after a gun ban, either; they are buying the guns and ammo to purposely CIRCUMVENT any gun control measure. (Personally, if I had a collection of valuable firearms---which I don't---I'd hide some of them away with plenty of ammo in humidity-proofed underground caches, off-site from my house. "Just in case." But that's me; I can't speak for anyone else.)

scarydog wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

What do you do, make him a sandwich?

Oh, I dunno. When, in most cases, your simple appearance on the scene is generally enough to thwart most would-be robbers, I'd think a 'warning shot' from your average sidearm would be sufficient (minus the redoing of your own drywall after said shot). A taser would also do what was needed. I mean, why not merely 'incapacitate' rather than 'ventillate?' Is 'justifiable manslaughter' really worth all the paperwork? The obvious point here is that an AK-47 is literal overkill. I happen to prefer knives and, really, if someone bothered to show up here with a gun of any variety, they're frankly welcome to whatever of my crap they want. There's nothing of worth that's really portable.

Underlying all this, I think what really got me was that a great number of expo attendees didn't look as if they could feed their own children, yet it's appropriate to drop hundreds/thousands on multiple automatic weapons? Many of them, I also believe, were not just motivated by rumorz on teh Intarwebz from Obama's camp. Some people see the current economic crisis, among other 'signs,' as a harbinger of the complete meltdown of social order. These people are buying guns because they expect to have to not only defend themselves, or hunt, but also to expect lawlessness to compel them to wipe out half their neighborhoods to procure canned goods.

No, gun owners don't plan to raid their neighbors' homes for canned goods; they're worried about securing their own homes against raids in the event that, say, a grinding economic meltdown drives/panics many citizens and non-citizens into violent lawlessness. The owners' fears are warranted: we have a MASSIVE, totally unserviceable national debt that's sitting there like a time bomb waiting to go off. Assuming the federal government doesn't confiscate most of our wealth first to cover deficit spending...when that debt bomb goes off, our country's going down big-time.  Might happen a year from now, might happen ten years from now, but it WILL happen; there's nothing to stop it from happening, save the aforementioned confiscation. Given our fiat currency standard, a loss of foreign and domestic confidence in the dollar would be all it takes to start a downward spiral of our currency. (China's already backing away from the dollar. Scary.) Who knows, we might experience a reenactment of the Weimar Republic's hyperinflation meltdown; the ingredients are all there. Nothing like paying a million or billion dollars for a loaf of bread! Worst-case scenario, we might be talking Dust Bowl levels of poverty across the nation. Think: "The Grapes of Wrath." BUT, unlike the America of the 1930s, we have neither the genteel, stoic society nor the domestic manufacturing base that would let us bounce back from a deep economic depression without violent social upheaval and profound infrastructure breakdowns. [See http://brillig.com/debt_clock/ and be horrified by the debt figures.]

Given a climate of financial uncertainty---current and future---we may not only need our own measures to combat crime, we may also need self-protection against the kind of tyrannical government that could arise from a new Great Depression or new Weimar Republic (the old Weimar Republic having ushered in the Nazi Party). Why SHOULDN'T the public be worried that gun-grabbing legislators will try to take away our sole means of personal self-defense? The massive surge in sales of guns and ammunition is the public's way of saying to overcontrolling legislators, "Keep your hands off of our ability to defend ourselves against criminals and despots." Don't expect those purchasers to meekly turn over their firearms to authorities after a gun ban, either; they are buying the guns and ammo to purposely CIRCUMVENT any gun control measure. (Personally, if I had a collection of valuable firearms---which I don't---I'd hide some of them away with plenty of ammo in humidity-proofed underground caches, off-site from my house. "Just in case." But that's me; I can't speak for anyone else.)

Hey now. We have a lot of socialists on this here board and they don't take kindly to the dropping of the Nazi card and besmirching fellow socialists.

I'm not trying to be a dick, just sayin', "be careful".