• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

The "RIGHT" to Protect Yourself?!?!

Outcast said:
When they take away the citizens ability to own a gun, the only people who will own guns will be criminals. We will be at the mercy of those who disobey the law. I would much rather have my chances for survival boosted by owning a weapon, than be at the mercy of some psycho who forced their way into my house...
Click to expand...

Exactly what I'm talking about. The right to own guns shouldn't be taken away, however there does need to be restrictions...I'm not saying that no one should own guns, in fact I own them, but removing all restrictions on them is just as insane. That's all.
 
hippiebrian said:
... Let's face it, you are more apt to be seriously injured or killed driving to the corner store for milk.
Click to expand...
Ok then outlaw Chevys and leave guns alone.

hippiebrian said:
I think the whole issue is so blown out of proportiobn by people clinging to their "rights" and people whose loved ones have been victims of gun violence that there will never be any balance in any of this. One side says no guns at all while the other side says no restrictions on weapons what ever. The reality, folks, is somewhere in the middle (just like most everything else!).

Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...
I am right in the middle. I say no guns at all for criminals and no restriction at all for law abiding citizens! just my $.02 :shrugs:
 
I think I'll inch my way out of this one with one last comment...the topic of gun control is so emotional (on both sides) and there are so few of us in the middle on it (like myself) that a real, sane discussion or real sane laws are impossible in this country.

Unfortunately.
 
hippiebrian said:
The thing with all this is that I personally know no one whose house was broken into by a rapist or murderer. I know no one, and have only read about a few in the paper, who has any need for gun protection at home.

Let's face it, you are more apt to be seriously injured or killed driving to the corner store for milk. I think the whole issue is so blown out of proportiobn by people clinging to their "rights" and people whose loved ones have been victims of gun violence that there will never be any balance in any of this. One side says no guns at all while the other side says no restrictions on weapons what ever. The reality, folks, is somewhere in the middle (just like most everything else!).

Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

Do you own any types of insurance? Home, health, automobile? Do you expect to have to use them often, if at all? Suppose those policies were only in force if you had them physically on your person at the time you needed them. Would you carry those policies with you, just in case?

A firearm kept for potential self defense is merely an insurance policy that MAY save your bacon when the chips are down. The catch is that you have to have it right there on your person when you REALLY need it. Otherwise it is of absolutely no use to you at all.

Just like the other forms of insurance, I'm sure most people hope they never have to use it. But it certainly is reassuring and comforting to know that it likely CAN help if need be.
 
hippiebrian said:
I think I'll inch my way out of this one with one last comment...the topic of gun control is so emotional (on both sides) and there are so few of us in the middle on it (like myself) that a real, sane discussion or real sane laws are impossible in this country.

Unfortunately.
Click to expand...
There are 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws nationwide. Every crime committed with a gun is already covered by some law. What you're seemingly endorsing is making an action by a law abiding citizen illegal to appease someone that does not like guns. It is simply illogical not emotional. What would law 20,001 do for crime? I own more guns than I can count on all my fingers and all my toes yet in 35 years not one single one of them has committed a crime. Not one single one of them was used in a robbery or murder. Not one single one of them endangered any person. What is taking my right away going to do to reduce crime? Why should I be punished because some little thug in some city stole a gun and used it to commit a crime? Both of which are illegal already. :shrugs:
 
hippiebrian said:
Like I said...bowing out quietly...
Click to expand...
I will assume that you quietly understand another law will only serve to remove rights from a law abiding citizen. Temporarily appease the gun hating crowd. And otherwise do nothing to reduce crime as the only people that would adhere to it were not breaking the law before it existed. :shrugs:
 
Rich Z said:
Depending on the type of barrel in the shotgun, the spread of the shot may not be as wide as you would think nor like. From one side of your house to another, you may find that you actually do need to aim a shotgun.
Click to expand...

My shotgun Is a Maverick 88 (basically same thing as a Mossberg 500 with the safety down by the trigger and the for arm is a molded piece unlike the 500 which can fully come apart, aside from that same thing but for cheeper) and it had a 28 inch modified choke on it, well for something for home defence and also I could use for bear defence when out fishing for close range. We cut the barrel down to 20 inches (18 is the limit) then I shortened the butt of the stock up by 1 inch to fit me better. After that I went ahead and painted the stock since I had modified it to hide some of the work on it, then I picked up a pair of Tru Glow fiber optic sights that attached to the rib on the barrel. At 15 feet I have a pattern of 2 foot wide with 00 buck shot lol.

I have it set up this way I can shoot either 00 buck shot for home defence or load up slugs and use it for a bear defence gun ( alot of people dont realize how much power is really in a 12 gauge 3 inch slug) just in case.

Other then that, I Conceal Carry a .380 (ya its little, but would you want to be on the other end? Its my ccw until I can buy a bigger nicer 1911) thats on me all the time so no matter what when Im home I have a gun with in reach of my person.


And Hippiebrian, why should we have more gun laws when our own government is pretty much arming the bad guys?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7357550n

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2976/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

We have enough gun laws, and only the honest people fallow them.

We had an old couple that was robbed years ago in the neighborhood next door by 2 young men. They were beaten and tied up and had the front door left open for them to freeze to death (was in the dead of winter and was -40f outside). I personally have had some one try to carjack me twice in Anchorage(which is not exactly the best place to live up here, worst place in my opinion). My mom had a group of older teen agers surround her car and attempt to break into her car (till she pulled out her gun). I have had some one try to break in our house when I was younger multiple times in a summer.

I personally have dealt with some situations that could have gone badly quickly. I know other people too. You may not know any one personally but that doesnt mean it doesnt happen. It may sound like I live in a crime ridden place but we actually have a low crime rate compared to many other states.

Either way, we all have the right to bear arms and need to fight to keep it. There is a reason the second amendment was made. Only the honest fallow the rules, criminals do not and will not. And they will always have access to guns no matter how many laws we have in place.
 
hippiebrian said:
Exactly what I'm talking about. The right to own guns shouldn't be taken away, however there does need to be restrictions...I'm not saying that no one should own guns, in fact I own them, but removing all restrictions on them is just as insane. That's all.
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who says all restrictions should be removed. Not even the NRA! So I'm not sure where you came up with that one.

When it comes to gun laws, they only affect the people who are going to follow them. That is you, me and probably everyone else that responded to this thread. The people who don't already abide by the current laws, aren't going to give a crap. They are probably already excluded under current laws to posses one. Do you think adding one, two or even three more laws is going to change that?

There are only two things that will work. That is removing every firearm from society. Every handgun, rifle, shotgun, muzzleloader, etc. EVERYONE! Not just the ones that you or I own, but everyone that every person, law abiding or not, owns. Which will be impossible! The only firearms they would get would be ones that the "law abiding" citizen would turn over, leaving the degenerates of society armed and in control.

-OR-

Making sure that every citizen, every person has the right to defend themselves. Keeping the Second Amendment as it was intended to be. Allowing Law Abiding citizens the right to purchase and posses firearms. Allowing a basic right to defend yourself, whether it be inside your home, at the park or at the grocery store without fear of persecution or prosecution and enforcing existing "gun" laws.

Disarming the average citizen only empowers those who live outside of societal laws. Having existing laws which prevent the innocent from defending themselves, regardless of whatever method they choose to use, which is a basic human right, only empowers those who live outside societal laws.

Gun Laws only work if EVERY person is willing to abide by them.

Wayne
 
Last edited:
medusacoils said:
The people who don't already abide by the current laws, aren't going to give a crap. They are probably already excluded under current laws to posses one. Do you think adding one, two or even three more laws is going to change that?
Click to expand...

Of course. The more laws the better.

We have very good laws on the books about age limits for buying cigarettes and alcohol and look how well that works....:sidestep:

And yes, I think a person who is going to carjack you, rob you or come after you with a weapon will certainly think about what laws he/she is breaking during the confrontation.........just like all the college kids who sit around their apartment Friday night saying, "Man, if only we were old enough we could buy and drink beer. I guess we'll have to sit here and do nothing because we don't want to break the law."


And my favorite shoot/don't shoot line came from my concealed weapons instructor (who was formor military and chief of police): "I can't tell you to shoot the person but I know I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
 
MohrSnakes said:
"I can't tell you to shoot the person but I know I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
Click to expand...

Precisely.

I wholeheartedly agree with Ralph Demicco - a person's life is not worth less just because they are not in their home. If someone is threatening your life, you do not have a duty to retreat, no matter where you are! I hope these bills are not vetoed again.

I hope that I never, ever have to use my firearm in self-defense, but if I'm ever in that situation, I'll choose to take my chances with a jury of my peers over being dead.

Kathy
 
medusacoils said:
I don't know anyone who says all restrictions should be removed. Not even the NRA! So I'm not sure where you came up with that one.

When it comes to gun laws, they only affect the people who are going to follow them. That is you, me and probably everyone else that responded to this thread. The people who don't already abide by the current laws, aren't going to give a crap. They are probably already excluded under current laws to posses one. Do you think adding one, two or even three more laws is going to change that?

There are only two things that will work. That is removing every firearm from society. Every handgun, rifle, shotgun, muzzleloader, etc. EVERYONE! Not just the ones that you or I own, but everyone that every person, law abiding or not, owns. Which will be impossible! The only firearms they would get would be ones that the "law abiding" citizen would turn over, leaving the degenerates of society armed and in control.

-OR-

Making sure that every citizen, every person has the right to defend themselves. Keeping the Second Amendment as it was intended to be. Allowing Law Abiding citizens the right to purchase and posses firearms. Allowing a basic right to defend yourself, whether it be inside your home, at the park or at the grocery store without fear of persecution or prosecution and enforcing existing "gun" laws.

Disarming the average citizen only empowers those who live outside of societal laws. Having existing laws which prevent the innocent from defending themselves, regardless of whatever method they choose to use, which is a basic human right, only empowers those who live outside societal laws.

Gun Laws only work if EVERY person is willing to abide by them.

Wayne
Click to expand...

Thats the problem, criminals couldnt care less only people who abide by the law. And those who abide by the law will be the ones put at a disadvantage, not the criminals they will get there guns any way.
 
Pay attention to the part at 1:40 about the crime wave(sarcasm) in states that allow CCW and 2:32 where the criminals are talking about always obeying gun laws(sarcasm) and at the end about 4:05 on the Nation Academy of Sciences review of studies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

:shrugs:
 
I think it's a desperate attempt to prevent vigilante's, but in all reality it's foolish to say to someone that fleeing is the safest option. If someone breaks into your home for any reason than I think the risk they run is being shot and possibly killed. I also live in NH, and though this is a safe state among standards, we still have to be able to protect ourselves in life-threatening situations. A few months ago in my hometown in fact, there was a burglary where a young man broke into an 83 year old mans house at 3 AM, subdued and hog-tied him, and held him at gunpoint only to kill himself a short while later. From what I heard the old man was told to put his head next to the burglars so that the shot would kill them both, but fortunately the old man survived. As more news broke it turns out the old man didn't have any guns to protect himself and fleeing was certainly no option. Had he been in possession of a fire-arm however I think he should have had the right to shoot as soon as he heard his windows shaking...Screw waiting for the police when your life's in danger, because by the time they come you could already be dead or the intruder could be long gone.
 
Here is an update to this:

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=a661635a-0895-4479-8e83-0bd5a69d65c3

Wednesday, Mar. 16, 2011

CONCORD – Laws would ease on owning, carrying and using firearms under bills the New Hampshire House passed Tuesday.

The so-called "Ward Bird bill" was among the bills that passed easily, largely on the strength of Republican support for more deregulation of firearms laws.

Bird, a Meredith farmer, was imprisoned for a mandatory three- to six-year term on a criminal threatening conviction for brandishing a firearm during a trespassing dispute. He served a short time in prison before his sentence was recently commuted.

The House also approved bills allowing almost anyone to carry concealed weapon and to use them to defend themselves in public places.

All three bills passed by wide margins.

House Bill 378, which allows a property owner to display a firearm during a trespassing dispute, passed 304-54. The bill states that someone on their own property dealing with someone "who refuses to leave and displays a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person shall not have committed a criminal act."

The House also passed HB 207, allowing a person to use deadly force to defend themselves or others anytime they are in a place they have a legal right to be. Current law requires a person to retreat if they can do so safely.

Rep. Kenneth Kreis, R-Canterbury, said, "People should not have to worry about being prosecuted for defending themselves." He said concerns about criminal prosecution should not hamper people who are faced with what he said are split-second decisions.

Rep. Laura Pantelakos, D-Portsmouth, said the bill is aimed at a problem that doesn't exist.

"No one has been jailed for not retreating," she said. "New Hampshire is a state that passes laws that solve problems, but does not change a law when there is no problem."

The bill passed, 270-92.

A bill that ends mandatory licenses to carry a concealed pistol or revolver, HB 330, passed 244-109. The bill allows most people, except convicted felons or those with a history of mental illness, to carry a concealed weapon, loaded or unloaded, without a license. The bill also repeals a law banning transport of a loaded gun in a vehicle, cuts the license fee for non-residents to $50 from the $100 level in effect now.

Rep. John Tholl, R-Whitefield, said the bill is "a reasonable compromise. . . . It allows the citizens of New Hampshire to carry concealed weapons without a license in any place not prohibited by law."

The House rejected two other bills on self-defense, and passed a bill, HB 225, that requires police to quickly return property seized under court order once charges are dismissed or a person is found not guilty.
Click to expand...


Wayne
 
NH isn't bad. We have some really liberal GUN laws. What the topic of discussion in NH has been as of late is the "right to protect yourself outside of you home". An extension of the castle doctrine.

Anyone who isn't a convicted felon or has been convicted of domestic violence can legally obtain a firearm in the state. Same applies to a concealed carry permit. You can hunt and shoot anywhere that it's safe to do so. Hey, I can even where a gun belt with a loaded firearm, as long as it's visible from three sides and not concealed, anywhere in the state but a Court Room or Post Office. It's my right!

Two days ago I purchased a new Shotgun and right before that a New Crossbow. Pics to come! I shoot the crossbow in my back yard. The shotgun is a different story. I probably could but I don't want to freak out the neighbors.

So as I mentioned, it's not a bad state. Just has some people running it who aren't very 2nd Amendment friendly right now. I think that is going to be changing come the next election cycle though.

Wayne
 
Thats good to hear!! :D

Up here though the law applies also that if you come onto private property if the owner has it posted "no firearms" by law you cant so places such as a Hospital and especially schools we cannot Carry but any where else we can. I carry every single day, some concealed and some days just out in the open. Great thing is people carry out in the open all the time and most people dont even blink an eye or do a double take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top