[Mojoe]

[quote="Colt"][quote="Mojoe"]

control). it's 2006 for christ sakes....not the wild wild west. it just seems strange that Bush would want to fight a war on terrorism around the globe, when in fact the people he is governing terrorize each other

ps.
My comments are not directed towards any individual here. They are directed at the policies on the subject. I am only practicing my right to free speech on the subject, and not to bash anyone. I am not angry or insulted or offended. I don't care who shoots who as long as you keep me and my loved ones out of it.

No your comments are pretty clear.
Your anti American or anti American goverment.

well... if you really must know, you are 1/2 right. I was born in the good ol' US of A, and paid my taxes to uncle sam for 17 years.....which means that if you are a youngin', I am probaly more american than you are.

and yes, I am anti american government. I think Bush is the biggest dickwad to hold the presidency since nixon. and according to recent popularity polls, I am not alone on this. it just didn't take me 5 years to realize it. he screwed you over so badly that it isn't even funny. your dollar is worth shit today. it went from over 50% stronger than the CDN dollar to less than 10% today. and the way it is going, investors predict the CDN dollar will be stronger than the US in the near future......which will leave me laughing all the way to the bank (refer to my post about making $ on exchange rates). he f'ked your economy by chasing camel jockeys around the desert for the last 5 years. but i guess i should thank him really. by following the trend he created, he helped make my portfolios a bit richer. anyone who supports him now either has to have their head in the clouds, or they are loyal to a fellow "southerner".

and speaking of "anti", aren't texans pretty much anti-anything that doesn't wear a cowboy hat at least 3 days a week. I might be wrong about that, but that is the impression frank hill gives me.

and now I am done with this post. it is starting to become personal. I am "american" enough to know that debating gun control with a texan is like debating knife control with jack the ripper.

[Anonymous]

[quote="Mojoe"][quote="Colt"]

control). it's 2006 for christ sakes....not the wild wild west. it just seems strange that Bush would want to fight a war on terrorism around the globe, when in fact the people he is governing terrorize each other

ps.
My comments are not directed towards any individual here. They are directed at the policies on the subject. I am only practicing my right to free speech on the subject, and not to bash anyone. I am not angry or insulted or offended. I don't care who shoots who as long as you keep me and my loved ones out of it.

No your comments are pretty clear.
Your anti American or anti American goverment.

well... if you really must know, you are 1/2 right. I was born in the good ol' US of A, and paid my taxes to uncle sam for 17 years.....which means that if you are a youngin', I am probaly more american than you are.

and yes, I am anti american government. I think Bush is the biggest dickwad to hold the presidency since nixon. and according to recent popularity polls, I am not alone on this. it just didn't take me 5 years to realize it. he screwed you over so badly that it isn't even funny. your dollar is worth shiate today. it went from over 50% stronger than the CDN dollar to less than 10% today. and the way it is going, investors predict the CDN dollar will be stronger than the US in the near future......which will leave me laughing all the way to the bank (refer to my post about making $ on exchange rates). he f'ked your economy by chasing camel jockeys around the desert for the last 5 years. but i guess i should thank him really. by following the trend he created, he helped make my portfolios a bit richer. anyone who supports him now either has to have their head in the clouds, or they are loyal to a fellow "southerner".

and speaking of "anti", aren't texans pretty much anti-anything that doesn't wear a cowboy hat at least 3 days a week. I might be wrong about that, but that is the impression frank hill gives me.

and now I am done with this post. it is starting to become personal. I am "american" enough to know that debating gun control with a texan is like debating knife control with jack the ripper.

[Mojoe]

First of all I'm not a fricking Texan, just happen to live here now. Yeah and it does suck. You know what MOJOE I’m anti Muslim but maybe they had a good idea cutting your PM head off in parlimt wasn’t such a bad idea. .We have all lost bros dont make it personal. Like I said before this isnt the place for it.

well I know I said I was done here, but only came back cuz I knew you would definately respond. I gotta be honest with you.....I don't have a damn clue what you said. The only thing that makes sense to me is "First of all I'm not a fricking Texan, just happen to live here now.", and "Like I said before this isnt the place for it." you lost me with the rest.
what sucks? living in texas? I am also lost about the muslims and the PM head. must be something I missed in the news...which I find too negative and depressing to even watch half the time. and about losing bros...do you mean by the war or by guns in general? I can't relate if it was the war, but I have lost 4 people to guns. My best bud like I mentioned, and 3 sucides through the years.

so you know, I used to own a fair amount of guns. nice ones at that. remington 7400 30.06, 2 pre ww2 browning 12 guages, 30-30 savage lever action, and 2 old shotguns....a 28 guage and a 10 guage, I also had a S&W 9mm pistol...which I smuggled into canada after buying it from an alcoholic at work who was late with his alimony and was desperate to sell.
not one of them was for "protection". they were either used for hunting, or as collection pieces. I never felt the need or urge to point any of them at another human being. care to know why I unloaded them all? it was because I shot a deer. not my first deer either. it was like the last in a dozen or so. when i walked up to it, it lifted his head and looked me right in the eyes. it changed me right on the spot. 10+ years of hunting ended at that moment, and I could not see myself killing another animal again. did it make me anti-hunting as well? hell no. I having nothing against hunting at all. It's just not for me.

and I am definately not "anti-gun". I am just "anti-fucked up society where everyone feels they need a gun". make sense?

so if you want to own a gun for sport or hobby.....that is way cool with me. I have nothing against that at all. it is the way society is that ticks me off. it would just be so cool to know that the human race has evolved enough so guns..or any weapons, were not needed. but i guess we are a long way from that. it might not show on the surface, but I am really a peaceful kind of guy. I hate violence.....and guns represent that the majority of the time.....which is why I hate them in that sense. so you can all do what you have to do to feel safe and protected. I am not judging you for that. it is not your fault...it is the criminals. and even though I am a peaceful guy, i know sometimes violence is needed to bring peace. so that is why I would like to see every neanderthal that is a threat to society loaded into cargo containers and dumped into the middle of the atlantic....so we can end the need to own a gun to feel safe.

[tory]

geez....you yanks and your guns.

when you say things like this to wrap up your comments i hope you can understand how i took your example as 1 individual, but overall you made it sound like a general comment towards any american who likes to carry a gun. pardon me if i misinterpreted it.

[TX_Kat600]

I guess what people on here don't understand is that I have already made a decision to carry. This was a decision made after long discussions between my wife and I, and it was made for my own personal reasons. It's not like i got a flyer in the mail saying "hey come on down and get your CHL...live like your in the wild wild west." I say this because I made my decision and nothing that is said here on this forum will change my mind.

I'm not telling anyone here that they should carry...as this is a PERSONAL choice everyone makes and therefore I do not want to hear anyone tell me why I shouldn't carry.

Once you walk 1000 miles in someone elses shoes than you may have the right to enterject your opinion into a personal decision like this.

[SKNL2]

Lighten up!!

[Yellow2002Kat]

As for the “Stand your ground” language used (I forget who said it), that only applies to the domicile (both in FL and TX…which BTW the TX CHL is good in FL too). Anything outside the domicile, the CHL holder has a duty to retreat or use another form of dispute resolution

Actually, I was the one who mentioned it. Please notice that I didn't get into the personal debate at all and I was really trying to answer your question. I was just addressing Mojoe's recipe where you would be imprisoned for killing the crackhead (using Macgyver's example) because he didn't actually have a knife. Down here that wouldn't be the case because he truly believed he had a knife. Please note that I also am also not so sure about the necessity for the "Stand your ground" provision - it was just a missing ingredient from Mojoe's recipe that I don't think he was aware of.

Anyway, in Florida at least, you are incorrect in saying that it only applies to the domicile. Here is a synopsis of the amendment, but I just closed the webpage of the newspaper it was in and I can't find it now. You can look through the actual legal documents here:

http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?Mode=Bills&Submenu=1&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Billnum=0249&Year=2005

I just thought the following was an easier read.

"Florida’s new "Stand Your Ground" (SYG) statute, signed into law in April, extends the use of deadly force to protect private property. It is now easier to invoke the so-called "castle" doctrine that is based on the maxim that "one's home is one's castle." Under the old law, the person who killed someone in her home had the burden of proving that she was in fear for her safety. Under SYG, all the shooter has to do is establish that the person she killed was "unlawfully" or "forcibly" entering her home. In addition, SYG removes the aforementioned duty to retreat and expands the definition of "castle" to include private vehicles. Finally, SYG allows armed citizens to use deadly force in public places if they "reasonably believe" it is necessary to prevent the "imminent" use of deadly force against them or others."

As for choosing to carry while riding, I find using a shoulder holster which holds the firearm in the small of your back (above the waist - not tucked) to be most comfortable. I also have a lot of armor / padding in the back of my jacket so I believe I'm as protected from impact with the weapon as I can be should I have an accident. I never wear a traditional shoulder holster when riding because the sides of my jacket don't have any armor or padding, whereas the back of my jacket has both. I had my holster custom made, but I'm sure you can find something to suit your needs.

Still haven't thought of a good place for you to store your weapon on the bike though. I think CP had a good idea with disassembling the weapon being a possibility, but since you can't openly show the weapon in public in TX I'm not sure where you could take it apart - maybe a nearby public restroom?

Whatever you choose good luck and ride safe!

[Mojoe]

geez....you yanks and your guns.

when you say things like this to wrap up your comments i hope you can understand how i took your example as 1 individual, but overall you made it sound like a general comment towards any american who likes to carry a gun. pardon me if i misinterpreted it.

I guess I could understand you taking it that way, but over all I tried, and believe I succeeded, in making very clear that I did not generalize everyone.
I did make it clear I did not object to carrying a gun if it was for a good reason....as an example, donalson who lived lived next to a gang banger. I would be owning a gun as well in that situation.

If you want it clear, here is a rough idea who I think should own a gun:

1) any individual who lives/works in a high crime area.

2) any individual who lives in a moderately hight crime area with a family to protect, and the gun should stay in the home.

3) any individual who wishes to own a gun as a collectors item, to hunt with, or just wants to have fun shooting off a few rounds at the target range.

now who shouldn't own a gun:

1) anyone with any mental instability or emotional stress. (I have seen these people....they make me nervous to say the least)

2) anyone who got bitch slapped in a good old street fight. sorry, but getting your pride bruised is not life threatening. take it like a man and learn to fight. don't hide behind a gun.

3) pretty much anyone under the age of 24-25 yrs old who carries for "protection". sorry, but I just don't feel you are mature enough at this point. Especially if you hang around with a click that keeps the testostorone (spelling) levels elevated in your system. Of course there are exception to this rule....such as being raised around guns and have been taught by someone with experience how to be responsible, and those who own for hunting or sport.

4) Fanatics of any kind. and by this I mean anyone who has a closet full of soldier of fortune magazines, and are one step away of joining a malitia. you know...the ones who are more impessed by how lee harvey oswald could pull off a shot like that at a moving target, then by seeing how tragic and senseless the act was. these are the nutjobs who will shoot you dead if your car breaks down and you only come on their property to ask to use a phone cuz they think everyone works for the CIA. The funny thing about some of these folks is that they don't have much to protect except their 267 guns, a few chickens and a 10ft satelitte dish.


so I hope I make it clear on this subject. I am not talking about gun control in the sense that no one should own one. I am talking about control in the sense of WHO should be allowed to own a gun. A good start would be that a psych exam be done on any individual in order to obtain a CHL. A criminal background check is not enough. I know a few "criminals" who have a spotless record, but are as odd as a $3 bill.

Once you walk 1000 miles in someone elses shoes than you may have the right to enterject your opinion into a personal decision like this.

well actually, now that you mention it......just posting this subject in a public forum gives ANYONE the right to interject their opinions on this subject. Posting a personal decision on a public forum kind of takes away the "personal" aspect of it, don't ya think? We have all walked a thousand miles in our own shows. Guns are a big thing in this world.....and EVERYONE has a right to share their opinion on the subject. You just have to accept the fact that everyone's opinion is not the same as yours.

[JohnE1000]

but i know for a fact the gun being on my hip has diffused a few situations that would have turned bad without the gun.

This specifically is why I support open-carry as the only carry concept that I like -- people are polite to those who carry openly, tend to be far more rational and less prone to spontaneous outbursts of violence. If everyone carried openly (and I do mean everyone), I expect our society would operate at a peak of politeness... But that's just my belief.

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

I didn't expect this to come from you CP. Why don't we just allow everyone to carry two guns in the open. Just like the wilde west. If two people get into arguments, don't even bother with calling the police. Let's settle everything through a duel.

With this mentality and the "Stand your Ground" provision, we in the US are moving backward. While most nations around the world are moving forward, people here are hanging on old culture and never want to move forward.

Name any country in Europe that allow people to carry guns freely.
Personnaly, I think people are being manipulated by the gun industries through a powerfull lobbies such as NRA. It is all politics and special interest.

It is totally un-civilized bahaivior, and it is firing back on the society. Search the web to find out how many kids have taken guns to schools, and how many small children have been killed by accedints, and you will know what I am talking about.

GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

[SKNL2]

I would like to know why it is that people assume that the reason to carry a gun is to settle an argument. Just because a few nitwits settle their highway disputes with weapons and a few gun owners store their firearms irresponsibly doesn't mean that the majority of gun-owners aren't law-abiding, peace-loving citizens. People that settle disputes with MURDER are MURDERERS. They will kill with a knife if they cannot get a gun, they will kill with a ball bat if they cannot get a knife. They will use their vehicles as a weapon if they don't have another weapon. The breakdown is a system that allows murderers to walk free, not the system that allows its citizens to arm themselves against sociopathic criminals.

I would rather do a search on how many children are sexually assaulted by repeat sexual predators that have slipped through the cracks of a dysfunctional justice system. I think those numbers will DWARF the numbers of accidental shootings.

Comparing Europe to the USA is like comparing Beverly Hills to Compton. They are different places and you must behave differently in each to survive. Europe also has super-high taxes, mandatory civil-service requirements, and a whole host of other things that make their society conveniently more advanced when propagandists want to villify the gun lobby.

I suppose you would rather American citizens riot at the least little displeasure. That seems to be what the "civilized" Europeans do on a regular basis.

A disarmed public is a victimized public. Plain and simple.

Note: I am aware this thread is hijacked. I am just along for the ride.

[tory]

yes mojoe, you did make it clear. my most recent response was just to explain why i thought your original remarks were generalized.

[The CyberPoet]

This specifically is why I support open-carry as the only carry concept that I like -- people are polite to those who carry openly, tend to be far more rational and less prone to spontaneous outbursts of violence. If everyone carried openly (and I do mean everyone), I expect our society would operate at a peak of politeness... But that's just my belief.

I didn't expect this to come from you CP. Why don't we just allow everyone to carry two guns in the open. Just like the wilde west. If two people get into arguments, don't even bother with calling the police. Let's settle everything through a duel.

Let's say you take me literally and I'll take you the same way. In our hypothetical situation, the majority of the population over drinking age carries a weapon or two strapped to them, and that dueling is legal again. What would happen as a result? In the first few years, a lot of hot heads would procede to blast each other away. That means if you're a hot-heat, you're either fast or dead. Note that I never said law enforcement stops -- just that the public are armed and purely voluntary dueling is fundamentally legallegal.

Given a half dozen years or so, the society would have fundamentally changed: people would either have to be extremely fast on the draw (and the odds are there will always be someone significantly faster), or they will revise their level of politeness to an higher standard to ensure they don't get called out to engage in duals. Person-on-person and most violent crimes would drop virtually to zero because of the risk factors involved (too easy to end up dead if you are constantly being reminded that everyone has the ability to kill you by that big six-shooter on their thigh). In a sense, I see it all as a form of accelerated darwinism in action, like putting chlorine in the shallow end of the gene pool. But I doubt it will ever come to pass in this country...

As for your comments about the Wilde West, if you do your research you'll find most people in the Wilde West who carried weapons did so for the reasons that have nothing to do with Hollywood's image of shoot 'em ups (or even personal protection against other humans), but rather for the realities of living in a rugged non-urbanized area prone to poisonous snakes at a time when horses were core to survival and transport. A colt revolver of the time period was the historical equivilent to a Leatherman tool -- it'll work as a hammer to pound a fence post (or reseat a horseshoe nail), a bottle opener to pop a bottle, a way to put a lame horse you love out of it's misery, a way to dispatch poisonous snakes. Thhe jailed and executed murderers then, and they still do so now.

With this mentality and the "Stand your Ground" provision, we in the US are moving backward. While most nations around the world are moving forward, people here are hanging on old culture and never want to move forward.

GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

The stand your ground provision is meaningful as a way of helping enforce that politeness I expressed. It doesn't mean that there won't be complete forensic investigations of all shootings, that there won't be grand juries summoned up to make judgement calls (including being staffed by people who share your opinions), and that there won't be a lot of legal proceedings involved. But it does mean that someone who shot a violent intruder entering their home won't automatically be sitting in a jail cell for a year while the family starves, waiting for the case for the grand jury to be assembled -- in a sense it restores the "innocent until proven guilty" provision of the constituion in cases of self-defense. The law concerning weapons use has only changed minorly here in Florida -- it has always been legal to defend yourself or anyone else in peril of grave bodily injury or death utilizing deadly force, both in public and in private.

Finally, as a former US Army soldier, I can tell you definitively, guns don't kill people -- people kill people. Murder was rampant long before firearms entered history. Aside from war-related casualties (including civil wars), blades have still killed more people than bullets (although those numbers are getting close to changing).

PS - I respect your right to your opinion and your right to not carry a weapon. Do you beleive I have the intelligence, clear-headedness, and insight to never use a weapon without justifiable provocation?

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[TX_Kat600]

As for the “Stand your ground” language used (I forget who said it), that only applies to the domicile (both in FL and TX…which BTW the TX CHL is good in FL too). Anything outside the domicile, the CHL holder has a duty to retreat or use another form of dispute resolution

Actually, I was the one who mentioned it. Please notice that I didn't get into the personal debate at all and I was really trying to answer your question. I was just addressing Mojoe's recipe where you would be imprisoned for killing the crackhead (using Macgyver's example) because he didn't actually have a knife. Down here that wouldn't be the case because he truly believed he had a knife. Please note that I also am also not so sure about the necessity for the "Stand your ground" provision - it was just a missing ingredient from Mojoe's recipe that I don't think he was aware of.

Anyway, in Florida at least, you are incorrect in saying that it only applies to the domicile. Here is a synopsis of the amendment, but I just closed the webpage of the newspaper it was in and I can't find it now. You can look through the actual legal documents here:

http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?Mode=Bills&Submenu=1&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Billnum=0249&Year=2005

I just thought the following was an easier read.

"Florida’s new "Stand Your Ground" (SYG) statute, signed into law in April, extends the use of deadly force to protect private property. It is now easier to invoke the so-called "castle" doctrine that is based on the maxim that "one's home is one's castle." Under the old law, the person who killed someone in her home had the burden of proving that she was in fear for her safety. Under SYG, all the shooter has to do is establish that the person she killed was "unlawfully" or "forcibly" entering her home. In addition, SYG removes the aforementioned duty to retreat and expands the definition of "castle" to include private vehicles. Finally, SYG allows armed citizens to use deadly force in public places if they "reasonably believe" it is necessary to prevent the "imminent" use of deadly force against them or others."

As for choosing to carry while riding, I find using a shoulder holster which holds the firearm in the small of your back (above the waist - not tucked) to be most comfortable. I also have a lot of armor / padding in the back of my jacket so I believe I'm as protected from impact with the weapon as I can be should I have an accident. I never wear a traditional shoulder holster when riding because the sides of my jacket don't have any armor or padding, whereas the back of my jacket has both. I had my holster custom made, but I'm sure you can find something to suit your needs.

Still haven't thought of a good place for you to store your weapon on the bike though. I think CP had a good idea with disassembling the weapon being a possibility, but since you can't openly show the weapon in public in TX I'm not sure where you could take it apart - maybe a nearby public restroom?

Whatever you choose good luck and ride safe!

Interesting reading. You are right...it does extend to vehicles...I wonder how or if that can be applied with motorcycles as there is no "entry" in to a motorcycle like a there is with a vehicle. I guess if someone knocks you off your bike in order to steal than that might be considered forcible entry. I also wonder now, if someone leaves their front door unlocked and an intruder comes in...is it still "forcible?" It would suck to shoot someone in your house and then get arrested because you left a door or window unlocked. I’m gonna start look at the district courts for Florida to see if this issue has been before the appeals court yet.

[Yellow2002Kat]

Do you beleive I have the intelligence, clear-headedness, and insight to never use a weapon without justifiable provocation?

I dunno CP, this is how I picture your average Saturday night...



Now that's what I call open carry

Of course, I AM KIDDING. Just trying to cool this thread down a bit - it's getting hot in here.

Anyone come up with a good place to store a firearm on a bike? Is it possible to bolt (or weld) a lockbox somewhere under the fairings that would be accessible? Maybe the storage under the seat could be modified to contain a lockbox somewhere?

[Yellow2002Kat]

...I wonder how or if that can be applied with motorcycles as there is no "entry" in to a motorcycle like a there is with a vehicle.

I don't know that there has to be anything specific to motorcycles as related to a vehicle.

Since the change in the law allows armed citizens to use deadly force in public places if they "reasonably believe" it is necessary to prevent the "imminent" use of deadly force against them or others I think it's already covered under that provision. Not sure, and this is not legal advice, but just a thought since if you're on your motorcycle you're presumably in public...