Trump got booed

[Doug1029]

Today the Supreme Court allowed the parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims to go ahead with a lawsuit against Remington Arms for wrongful death.  This could overturn the gun manufactures' immunity.  It could also have the effect of putting arms makers out of business, or raising the price of their products, maybe both.  Some will see this as dangerous to the Second Amendment; others will see it as a step to protect the right to life.

This sort of thing is affecting your/our rights every day and most people know nothing about it.

Doug

[Doug1029]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

Brandishing is illegal.  Their right to carry isn't contingent on your fears.  Suck it up.  This is the statute that defines when a citizen oversteps and threatens illegally.  Read it, it might be your friend.

[Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21 § 1289.16]

Laws can be changed.  Open carry was.  Less than two weeks ago.  We can always change it back; though, I fear Oklahoma will be among the last to do so.  We're just too wild west.

Doug

Edited November 12, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

17 minutes ago, skliss said:

I call big time BS on that comment.

Call it what you like.  That doesn't change the facts.

Doug

[+Desertrat56]

20 minutes ago, and then said:

I'd answer that this is a choice and not an issue being forced on average citizens.  I live in an area where any given individual you meet, male or female, COULD be armed.  None of us walk around in fear of our neighbors or even strangers.  It just isn't a problem.  I assume that happens in major cities where the density of potential crazies is much higher and that's sad but a citizen's right to be armed is not dependent on the fears of others so long as that citizen abides by the law laid down in our Constitution and local laws based on it.  Those that overreach will soon be ignored on a large scale all over America.  Sanctuaries... don't ya know.

You make a good point, fear is a mostly a mental issue.  Doug1029's perception of people trying to intimidate others by wearing a gun everywhere they go is a perception.  Maybe those people are more fearful than most and wear the gun to feel safe.  Most people I know who experience a lot of fear are women who have been beaten and almost killed by their boyfriend or husband.  And they do what they can to function day to day, two I know bought guns because of that and one carries it in her purse, went to the trouble and expense of getting a concealed carry permit.  The other one just keeps an unloaded shotgun under her bed, (she has kids so there is no ammo in the house).

[Doug1029]

24 minutes ago, skliss said:

So the article I read said the gun had been dropped earlier in the day and it was holstered at the time it went off. Purely an accident, not accidental handling. It also said that he was long gone by the time to the police got there, the store called them 2 hours after the incident and they don't even know the name of the suspect. How did they put all those charges you claim on him when they don't even know who it was?

https://www.normantranscript.com/oklahoma/news/illegal-gun-discharge-reported-in-stillwater-walmart/article_e81d4ad0-aa27-5cf8-badc-ee387a6004e3.html

The gun was loaded, otherwise, it couldn't go off.  Loading a gun is a pre-meditated act.  It was no accident.

He was also in a place that is closed to firearms.  That's criminal trespass (The gun makes it criminal.).  Committing a crime with a firearm is a separate crime.

I'll bet Walmart employees know what to do NEXT time.

Doug

[Duke Wellington]

I totally 100% agree with the gun laws in the USA.

Normal people shouldn't be banned from hunting with high calibre rounds or automatic weapons. Its a violation of their freedoms. Instead a method of preventing mentally ill people from gun ownership needs to be introduced. I propose that people no longer go to the police for a gun license but to their doctor who can refuse it if the person is bonkers mad.

In the meantime Trump is right to resist calls from the anti-gun lobby to ban these weapons. He is right because its not guns that kill people, but the person pulling the trigger. In fact all the research indicates that more guns would reduce the casualty numbers during spree killings because then someone is more likely to shoot the crazy loon.

[skliss]

15 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

The gun was loaded, otherwise, it couldn't go off.  Loading a gun is a pre-meditated act.  It was no accident.

He was also in a place that is closed to firearms.  That's criminal trespass (The gun makes it criminal.).  Committing a crime with a firearm is a separate crime.

I'll bet Walmart employees know what to do NEXT time.

Doug

Still doesn't explain the story discrepancies, but whatever....I'll know to always double check your version of events.

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, skliss said:

Still doesn't explain the story discrepancies, but whatever....I'll know to always double check your version of events.

I think you are assuming that I said he was charged with specific crimes by police.  That is not accurate.  Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Double-checking is part-and-parcel of research.  If you're not doing that with everything, then your past work contains a lot of someone else's mistakes, even if you didn't make any new ones.

 

While we're on the topic of gun violence:  there was a drive-by shooting in my neighborhood last night.  This was the second such event in the 18 years I have lived there.  Police investigated, but no arrests.  The target appears to have been a house across the street and two down from me - the same as last time.  Last time, nobody was home.  This time, I don't know.  Speculation is that it's drug-related.  No matter how you cut this one, it was a purely-criminal act.

Doug

Edited November 13, 2019 by Doug1029