Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
#881
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
This happened last night here, and you can bet that MSM isn't going to run a story on it.
Tucson police: Man shot, killed attempting robbery
Tucson police: Man shot, killed attempting robbery
1. Do not get out of your vehicle during a traffic stop unless instructed. This (A) makes cops nervous and (B) made it much more likely to expose his firearm.
I learned this when I was 16 and did 30 in a 25 on the way to school. Didn't even realize I was being pulled over until I got out of the car with my backpack on, and our school officer had his gun drawn and he was screaming at me.
2. Do not leave the vehicle running during a traffic stop. This makes the cop nervous because they think you may decide to run.
3. Do not carry outside the waistband if you are a fat slob with a huge beer gut and a passing breeze is going to blow your cover shirt away from your firearm.
If you're conceal carrying, and someone sees your weapon, isn't that a law violation, even if open carry is legal?
As a refresher, when a cop flips his blue lights on you...
I learned this when I was 16 and did 30 in a 25 on the way to school. Didn't even realize I was being pulled over until I got out of the car with my backpack on, and our school officer had his gun drawn and he was screaming at me.
2. Do not leave the vehicle running during a traffic stop. This makes the cop nervous because they think you may decide to run.
3. Do not carry outside the waistband if you are a fat slob with a huge beer gut and a passing breeze is going to blow your cover shirt away from your firearm.
If you're conceal carrying, and someone sees your weapon, isn't that a law violation, even if open carry is legal?
As a refresher, when a cop flips his blue lights on you...
- Activate your turn signal to indicate you recognize the blue lights and are preparing to pull over.
- Find a reasonably safe
but closespot to pull over.
Safety is more important than close. At night there is no reason to not proceed to the next well lit gas station or similar place. You can even call 911 to verify that you are being pulled over by a real cop (down here near the border fake cops are a good way to get kidnapped and held for an ATM ransom). A good cop will also understand if you want to wait to exit the freeway before pulling over. After watching enough semi wheel-offs and reckless drivers hitting cars on the shoulder on youtube I don't stop on the freeway for anybody. - Pull far enough off the shoulder to give the cop room to walk to your driver side door without putting him in the flow of traffic.
And don't pull over on the left side/middle of the road because you were in the left lane! At least down here that gets you an extra ticket for traffic obstruction. - Roll down your windows, turn off your car, turn off your radio if it plays with the ignition powered on.
- Lift your sunglasses off your face and on to your head. Do not take them off and put them in a case, an overhead storage bin, or toss them on the passenger seat.
- Put both hands on the steering wheel (think: 10 and 2).
- Wait for the cop to address you and keep your answers short and use "yes, sir" and "no, sir."
#883
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
So last night Michael Moore let out a Klaxon call to his followers on Twitter. Guns should be illegal because they killed 500 children accidentally. He spreads his definition of child to include teenagers.
Terrible tally: 500 children dead from gunshots every year, 7,500 hurt, analysis finds - NBC News.com
Let's ignore that this is a statistic that has been declining steadily (MM claims it's increased 500% since Columbine, but the CDC says overall accidental gun deaths are down) and let's look at something else that kills kids. Swimming pools. We have ~300,000,000 guns in this country, but only ~10,000,000 swimming pools. On average, 3800 people die per year from unintentional drowning in a swimming pool, with about half of that number being children under 4. 1900 legitimate CHILDREN, die on average, per year, from swimming pools. A quick reminder, only about 9500 people die per year from murder via firearm, a bit more than twice the number of accidental drownings.
What if we had 300,000,000 pools? Do you think we'd have 114,000 accidental drownings per year?
But people tell me this is a moot point, swimming pools aren't designed to kill, so why should we ban them. I think it is a very valid point, as we have 1/30th the amount of swimming pools as guns, and swimming pools kill almost 4 times as many children (counting the apples and oranges definitions of children) per year on accident.
I found this nice summation on another article
Terrible tally: 500 children dead from gunshots every year, 7,500 hurt, analysis finds - NBC News.com
Let's ignore that this is a statistic that has been declining steadily (MM claims it's increased 500% since Columbine, but the CDC says overall accidental gun deaths are down) and let's look at something else that kills kids. Swimming pools. We have ~300,000,000 guns in this country, but only ~10,000,000 swimming pools. On average, 3800 people die per year from unintentional drowning in a swimming pool, with about half of that number being children under 4. 1900 legitimate CHILDREN, die on average, per year, from swimming pools. A quick reminder, only about 9500 people die per year from murder via firearm, a bit more than twice the number of accidental drownings.
What if we had 300,000,000 pools? Do you think we'd have 114,000 accidental drownings per year?
But people tell me this is a moot point, swimming pools aren't designed to kill, so why should we ban them. I think it is a very valid point, as we have 1/30th the amount of swimming pools as guns, and swimming pools kill almost 4 times as many children (counting the apples and oranges definitions of children) per year on accident.
I found this nice summation on another article
According to the 2009 data, in reality among all child accidental deaths nationally, firearms were involved in 1.1 percent, compared to motor vehicles (41 percent), suffocation (21 percent), drowning (15 percent), fires (8 percent), pedal cycles (2 percent), poisoning (2 percent), falls (1.9 percent), environmental factors (1.5 percent), and medical mistakes (1 percent). Since the difference between accidental deaths due to medical mistakes (1 percent) and accidental deaths due to firearms (1.1 percent) is only 0.1 percentage points, perhaps we should consider a ban on pediatricians along with the ban they propose on firearms and large-capacity magazines.
#888
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
More good guys with guns stopping bad guys.
3 suspected burglars captured, caught in the act by neighbor with a gun | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona
3 suspected burglars captured, caught in the act by neighbor with a gun | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona
#891
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
He wrote for S.W.A.T. in 2008 that among the things he tells his trainees early on is that “Today is the day you may need to kill someone in order to go home.”
“If you cannot turn on the ‘Mean Gene’ for yourself, who will?” he wrote. “If you find yourself in an ambush, in the kill zone, you need to turn on that mean gene.”
“If you cannot turn on the ‘Mean Gene’ for yourself, who will?” he wrote. “If you find yourself in an ambush, in the kill zone, you need to turn on that mean gene.”
In one revealing thread, forum members debated whether the use of force is justified if someone brandishes or fires a BB gun at another person.
Gelhaus chimed in, writing that “It’s going to come down to YOUR ability to articulate to law enforcement and very likely the Court that you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury.”
“I think we keep coming back to this, articulation — your ability to explain why — will be quite significant,” Gelhaus wrote.
Gelhaus chimed in, writing that “It’s going to come down to YOUR ability to articulate to law enforcement and very likely the Court that you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury.”
“I think we keep coming back to this, articulation — your ability to explain why — will be quite significant,” Gelhaus wrote.
#892
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Justice Alito , Opinion of the Court: OTIS McDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
citizens must be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.
#893
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
For those that don't want to read the whole opinion... basically, the McDonald case incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states. This is significant, because the Heller case decided that people have the right to posess handguns in their home for self defense, and now it applies to ALL STATES... which means that outright handgun bans are unconstitutional.
If you want to know what "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights individual Amendments mean, you need to look it up... but basically, before the Civil War, and before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. Over the course of decades, each of the orignial Bill of Rights amendments has had to be carefully vetted through the Supreme Court to see if it applies to the states (incorporated) or just the Federal Govt... and we just now (with McDonald, 2010) got the 2nd decided.
If you want to know what "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights individual Amendments mean, you need to look it up... but basically, before the Civil War, and before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. Over the course of decades, each of the orignial Bill of Rights amendments has had to be carefully vetted through the Supreme Court to see if it applies to the states (incorporated) or just the Federal Govt... and we just now (with McDonald, 2010) got the 2nd decided.
#894
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
UN Maps of gun ownership and homicides
U.N. Maps Show U.S. High in Gun Ownership, Low in Homicides
Gun Ownership
![](https://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/current-events-news-politics-77/94275-gun-rights-should-you-allowed-own-rpg-bf66253eec794232919224a875eb3172.jpg?dateline=1384006847)
Homicides
![](https://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/current-events-news-politics-77/94276-gun-rights-should-you-allowed-own-rpg-3c9d2d72aa9b4221861276b897df0cba.jpg?dateline=1384006847)
Any Questions?
U.N. Maps Show U.S. High in Gun Ownership, Low in Homicides
Gun Ownership
![](https://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/current-events-news-politics-77/94275-gun-rights-should-you-allowed-own-rpg-bf66253eec794232919224a875eb3172.jpg?dateline=1384006847)
Homicides
![](https://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/current-events-news-politics-77/94276-gun-rights-should-you-allowed-own-rpg-3c9d2d72aa9b4221861276b897df0cba.jpg?dateline=1384006847)
Any Questions?
#896
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Same levels of Homicides in US as in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan?
A bit compressed scale, we don't even have traffic deaths to break out of that green scale.
When you can have wars (not counting "war on terror") and still be green I'd say that the correlation says nothing (no causation).
A bit compressed scale, we don't even have traffic deaths to break out of that green scale.
When you can have wars (not counting "war on terror") and still be green I'd say that the correlation says nothing (no causation).
#897
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
LiveLeak.com - Police officer will "Shoot you in the head" - Open Carry Stop
in this day and age as a police officer, if you make an action towards me, I will shoot you in the head; nothing personal.
in this day and age as a police officer, if you make an action towards me, I will shoot you in the head; nothing personal.
#898
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
![Lightbulb](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon3.gif)
In fairness, without having dug in to the data, the label does say "intentional homicides." Granted, I have no idea how they are classifying terrorist attacks, civil and sectarian violence, etc or who in Pakistan and Iraq is keeping those records.
#900
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Fourth Circuit Finds That Carrying a Firearm in an Open-Carry State Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion and Provides Thorough Analysis of the "Free to Leave" Standard of Seizure - FEDagent
The court of appeals then reviewed each of the proffered articulable suspicions suggested by the officers. The court of appeals first noted that “Officer Zastrow’s suspicion that a lone driver at a gas pump who he did not observe drive into the gas station is engaged in drug trafficking borders on absurd. . . . [C]oncluding that Troupe’s presence in his vehicle at a gas station is suspicious is unreasonable.”
“Second, Gates’ prior arrest history cannot be a logical basis for a reasonable, particularized suspicion as to Black. Without more, Gates’ prior arrest history in itself is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion as to Gates, much less Black.”
“Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms . . . Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. . . . We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”
Fourth, the officers’ assumption that where there is one gun there is most likely a second the court of appeals held that it “would abdicate [its] judicial role if [it] took law enforcement-created rules as sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. . . . Such a rule subjects to seizure or search anyone who actively or passively associates with a gun carrier. The seizure has no connection with the individual seized, the activity they are involved in, their mannerisms, or their suspiciousness; rather, the seizure is a mere happenstance of geography.”
“Fifth, it is counterintuitive that Black provided a justification for reasonable suspicion by volunteering his ID to the officer. . . . The record indicates that three of the six men provided identification to the officers, thus, Black’s action could hardly be characterized as overly cooperative. Additionally, we have noted that this type of argument—that cooperation is a justification for reasonable suspicion—actually places a defendant in a worse position than if he had simply refused to cooperate altogether because the Supreme Court has ‘consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.’ . . . Likewise, there is nothing suspicious about the fact that Black’s ID revealed he lived outside the district. . . . The pertinent facts remaining in the reasonable suspicion analysis are that the men were in a high crime area at night. These facts, even when coupled with the officers’ irrational assumptions based on innocent facts, fail to support the conclusion that Officer Zastrow had reasonable suspicion that Black was engaging in criminal activity.”
For these reasons, Mr. Black’s seizure was not reasonable. Accordingly, the decision to deny Mr. Black’s suppression motion was reversed. Rather than remand for further proceedings, the court of appeals vacated Mr. Black’s sentence.
“Second, Gates’ prior arrest history cannot be a logical basis for a reasonable, particularized suspicion as to Black. Without more, Gates’ prior arrest history in itself is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion as to Gates, much less Black.”
“Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms . . . Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. . . . We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”
Fourth, the officers’ assumption that where there is one gun there is most likely a second the court of appeals held that it “would abdicate [its] judicial role if [it] took law enforcement-created rules as sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. . . . Such a rule subjects to seizure or search anyone who actively or passively associates with a gun carrier. The seizure has no connection with the individual seized, the activity they are involved in, their mannerisms, or their suspiciousness; rather, the seizure is a mere happenstance of geography.”
“Fifth, it is counterintuitive that Black provided a justification for reasonable suspicion by volunteering his ID to the officer. . . . The record indicates that three of the six men provided identification to the officers, thus, Black’s action could hardly be characterized as overly cooperative. Additionally, we have noted that this type of argument—that cooperation is a justification for reasonable suspicion—actually places a defendant in a worse position than if he had simply refused to cooperate altogether because the Supreme Court has ‘consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.’ . . . Likewise, there is nothing suspicious about the fact that Black’s ID revealed he lived outside the district. . . . The pertinent facts remaining in the reasonable suspicion analysis are that the men were in a high crime area at night. These facts, even when coupled with the officers’ irrational assumptions based on innocent facts, fail to support the conclusion that Officer Zastrow had reasonable suspicion that Black was engaging in criminal activity.”
For these reasons, Mr. Black’s seizure was not reasonable. Accordingly, the decision to deny Mr. Black’s suppression motion was reversed. Rather than remand for further proceedings, the court of appeals vacated Mr. Black’s sentence.