I'm sure I'm in a minority here, but I've always felt that anyone wanting to carry a gun, is the last person I'd want to be carrying one.

And knowing that someone as BAT SHIT CRAZY as Glenn Beck carries a concealed weapon just worries me more. If that fucker can get a concealed carry permit then just about any psychopath can get one.

Blankfist, you've obviously have never been to Newark. My brother lived there for a few years during his studies.

I agree with your "right to bear arms" statement, but I believe it's the right to OWN a gun, not the right to carry a concealed weapon that you can pull out anywhere at your own choosing.

I'll also agree with Darkhand in the post above and I'll also add that these guns are/were usually used for purposes that would infringe on the rights of others. (i.e. robbing, murder, etc)

The extreme security measures at the border crossings, including those of ambulances and clearly sick patients are the result of incidents such as this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akuv_TFIoOY

This other incident involves a woman who has received treatment several times in Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva, and on her last visit, however, she was recruited by one of the terrorist organizations, and was set up with explosive pants, to try and kill the very people who helped her in the hospital. Not soldiers, mind you. She was headed to kill her doctors, and any patient in the hospital unlucky enough to be caught in the blast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ONpV3kQDMw

Asking people to make that impossible choice is wrong, but as I see it, that's the only reason travel to Israeli hospitals is still an option for people in Gaza, given the fact that Hamas, the Jihad and other organizations have no qualms about using even pregnant women to conceal weapons and explosives.

This story is far from being the one-sided brutal oppression tale this article makes it out to be.

Also, I won't edit your tags, but tagging this "Zionism" is as meaningless as adding it to the Islam channel.

This is not as cut and dry as some of the other brutality ones... and again, what if he felt the need to shoot her? that would be certainly more tragic... although you would think tasering might kill her just as well.... if you're only thinking about her, and not your own welfare as an officer.

The cop is a wuss, and the old lady is a crank. Put two and two together and you get a shocking result.

She could have had a concealed weapon. She resisted lawful orders. She was doing 60 in a 35. What about the danger to other citizens? Oh, a speeding senior citizen... never seen that turn into tragedy...



You know what though, i don't actually like my grandparents much so i guess i dont have sympathy for age when people are being dicks, cops or citizens.

Your YouTube embed is good, but what about this http://www.videosift.com/video/72-YO-Grandmother-TASERED-For-Not-Signing-Traffic-Ticket


My grandparents could easily overpower a cop.. and she could have easily had a concealed weapon...

MGR is going to be a cop --- you really dont think age has anything to do with the ability to fire a gun at an officer's head??....


this guy is a wuss but he's still giving lawful orders.... I really don't care mostly because the old lady lied. She lied about resisting.

Something else that bothers me about this video is that the shooter always seemed to target the person carrying the gun immediately after shooting the instructor.

You would think that a real shooter would prefer to go after the nearest person within their field of vision or at random than go after the person they somehow know is carrying a concealed weapon.

He goes after the first guy before he even tips off that he has a gun by reaching for it.

I would like to have seen her pull out her concealed weapon and SHOOT both the "robbers". That would teach the fuckers.

edit: dammit, sarnath'd by Nordlich.

police sniper is about to pre-emptively shoot them for looking a bit non-white and reaching for a concealed weapon.

>> ^bamdrew:
Just punching at a lady with billyclub in-hand?
I thought U.S. officers had tasers and sprays and other advanced knickknacks to brutalize protesters? This is amateur hour stuff here.


I know this changes from state to state, but Indiana defines tasers as just less than lethal force. Id imagine that other states do as well.

Having recently discussed excessive force with a friend in the Indiana state police office, I can say that refusing to cooperate with police is often seen as a hostile action. When a offending party possibly has a weapon and is confrontational the first response is to remove and reduce the risk to all involved.

As code pick was in a crowd of citizens and officers alike and could possibly have a concealed weapon on her person, the slightest confrontational behavior will result in this type of action.

Sorry if your going to protest, respect those officers responsible for your safety. Its not likely that code pink will face criminal charges (unless she did threaten the officer) but neither will the cop.

TL;DR version: The video leaves to many questions to side with anyone.

I'm going to offend some people here but I have to.

This guy has it all, pro choice and anti 2nd amendment.

Just because I support the 2nd amendment does not make me a religious conservative. I support the constitution, what does that make me?

And know I wont explain it to you naysayers out there, this guy is just the same as the other guy if not worse. He is "A peace loving decoy ready for retaliation." (-Dirty harry gorillaz).

He says he is pro gun, yet he supports the ban in Chicago, and in the District of Columbia even though they struck it down. Yet it is still illegal to own any automatic or semi auto gun? That's every gun except revolvers and lever actions and pump shot guns. Not to mention the class 3 weapons, that are classified assault. That usually means any weapon with a "bayonet lug", recoil suppressors, or heat plating (commonly seen on shotguns particularly the Spas series.)

http://www.popandsports.com/?p=1118

"Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated:
Obama
Voted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10
Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11
Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12
Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13
Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14
Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15
Anti-gun
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16
Pro-gun
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17
Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18
Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
Anti-gun

4 James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court to hear gun case," Chicago Tribune, November 20, 2007.
5 Illinois State Senate, vote on SB 2165 (41-16), May 25, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
7 See the Gun Owners of America fact sheet at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm.
8 John Chase, "Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds," Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2004.
9 Senators Chuck Schumer and John Kerry had both cosponsored S. 1431 in 2003, a bill that would have banned any semi-auto shotgun that also contained a pistol grip, which the bill defined as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." According to that definition, just about any semi-automatic shotgun would be banned.
10 See supra note 6.
11 About the so-called "assault weapons" ban, Obama says, "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law." See supra note 8.
12 See supra note 5.
13 As a state senator, "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." "Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics," Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
14 On July 28, 2005, Senator Obama voted for a provision requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers' protection act (S. 397).
15On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business. While an argument could be made that a pro-gun Senator might vote against this bill because it contained a lock-up-your-safety provision (see supra note 14), the fact that Obama voted in favor of that trigger lock amendment (but against the overall bill) indicates his real animus against helping gun dealers protect themselves from the anti-gun lawsuits that were aimed at driving them into bankruptcy.
16 On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
17 On January 18, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a pro-gun amendment to strike language in S. 1 that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like Gun Owners of America. The amendment, which passed, struck requirements that would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members, and could easily have led to government demands for GOA's membership list (a.k.a. registration).
18 Obama has frequently made statements which indicate that he would restrict the interstate sale of firearms. For example, he told the NAACP that, "We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit." Senator Barack Obama, at the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, July 12, 2007.
19 See supra note 4. " Quoted from a (I Know absolutely conservative site ).

http://www.gop.com/images/research/062608Research2.pdf (this is a PDF) - its hard to find stuff that isn't blatantly republican.

All i am saying is do a little digging on this. I don't want warmongering republican or a lair democrat for president.

I have know problem with commonsense law, but don't lie about your record. I support background checks and the tests needed to get a CCW.

Get this, in some states all you need is hunters education can get a CCW.

This argument has nothing to do with pro choice or pro life in which case I am indifferent.

quote from rychan:
Or maybe your teaching applies only to concealed weapons in public places, neither of which necessarily apply to this situation.

I was speaking from the perspective of one of the other golfers on the range, who might have a CCW, as they are the only people who could have legally had a weapon on their person...unless they themselves were walking around with a firearm in plain sight.

Generally a person has greater latitude in using physical force in the defense of her dwelling than in the defense of other property.

Exactly, the rules would be even more strict if you were on someone elses property--as the golfers at the ranger were.

"Threatening" clearly can be enough for a reasonable self-defense argument.

Self defense, yes. Drawing your weapon and opening fire, no. If someone picks a fight with you and you shoot them you will most likely be charged with murder...just because someone appears threatening or is even directly threatening you doesn't mean you can shoot them. Legally, you are required to exhaust all available options--including running away if possible, before you can even draw your weapon. Even when become the attack becomes imminent and you have no last option, and you are forced to draw your weapon, you must shout at your attacker to stop--if possible...you cannot just pull out your revolver like its a scene from tombstone and start railing the hammer.

From your own link, http://law.jrank.org/pages/10128/Self-Defense.html:

"A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. DEADLY FORCE may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.

In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile.

A person who is the initial aggressor in a physical encounter may be able to claim self-defense if the tables turn in the course of the fight. Generally a person who was the aggressor may use nondeadly force if the victim resumes fighting after the original fight ended. If the original aggressor attacked with nondeadly force and was met with deadly force in return, the aggressor may respond with deadly force.

A person may use force to defend a third person from attack. If the defender is mistaken, however, and the third party does not need assistance, most jurisdictions hold that the defender may be held liable in civil court for injuries inflicted on the supposed attacker.

A defendant who successfully invokes self-defense may be found not guilty or not liable. If the defendant's self-defense was imperfect, the self-defense may only reduce the defendant's liability. Imperfect self-defense is self-defense that was arguably necessary but somehow unreasonable. For example, if a person had a GOOD FAITH belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but that belief was unreasonable, the defendant would have a claim of imperfect self-defense. In some jurisdictions, the successful invocation of such a defense reduces a murder charge to MANSLAUGHTER. Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense."

I think it is very interesting that you decided to use that article as proof against my argument, and had to read through passages that refuted your beliefs in order to cherry pick your quote from it...what do you have to gain from the view you hold?

Well, regardless of what they told you in your class, I don't think you're correct.

The article you yourself provided pretty much mirrors exactly what I learned in my CCW class (which was taught by a local police sniper with 20 years experience)

>> ^imstellar28:
That would be murder. Just because someone has a gun in public, or is even threatening, doesn't mean you have the right to shoot them--people who undergo CCW training realize this as they re-iterate this point several times. There is a list of criteria that must be satisfied before you can even legally draw your weapon--at least in my state.


Well, regardless of what they told you in your class, I don't think you're correct. It's not that clear cut. Or maybe your teaching applies only to concealed weapons in public places, neither of which necessarily apply to this situation.

See http://law.jrank.org/pages/10128/Self-Defense.html

"The same values that underpin self-defense support the defense of property. Generally a person has greater latitude in using physical force in the defense of her dwelling than in the defense of other property. In most jurisdictions deadly force is justified if a person unlawfully enters onto property and the property owner reasonably believes that the trespasser is about to commit a felony or do harm to a person on the premises."

I think if this driving range owner saw a guy with a shotgun trespass into and then sneak through his property he could try to argue that the trespasser was "about to commit a felony or do harm to a person on the premises". You seem absolutely incorrect that "threatening" isn't enough. "Threatening" clearly can be enough for a reasonable self-defense argument.

Also, from this case http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/07/04/area_news/doc486d3008b3d11480365604.txt the district attorney is quoted as saying "... the shooter is allowed to act on appearances in defending themselves or another and a mistaken belief in the appearance of danger is immaterial" when explaining why they weren't prosecuting a self-defense/murder case.

I'm not saying someone is likely to get off completely (although it's possible), but it's certainly strong mitigating factors that a prosecutor, judge, and jury will consider carefully.

Also, I'm sure in this situation they made previous arrangements with the driving range and quite possibly the local police.

That's not a night stick, it's an Asp. http://www.uws.com/ASPBATONS/HomePage.html

Has concealed weapon status up here in the sticks.

Actually, it's nice to have a grenade in your personal queue, like carrying a concealed weapon. I'm doing you a favor...

You're right gun-free 'zones' don't work. When you're one of few states in country that on the whole has liberal gun ownership laws and simply ludicrous gun ownership levels compared to any other developed country, you'd be naive to propose than it would be anything but marginally more difficult for criminals to smuggle legally purchased firearms in from neighbouring states, unless you enforce highly stringent cross border checks. In the same way, a universal ban on firearms would likely not have any immediate drastic effects on violent crime involving firearms, other factors such as living standards, unemployment levels notwithstanding. A governmental requisitioning of all registered firearms would be far more effective, such the one conducted in Australia which saw 650,000 firearms surrendered in 1997, and a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths in just four years. Again though, with an estimated 50% of US households owning guns with a significant number unregistered, and a potentially far higher average gross amount, the effects would be unlikely to be felt immediately.

Pushing the libertarian approach of the Second Ammendment is skirting around the issue in two ways. Firstly the Second Ammendment talks about the need for a well trained armed militia which is arguable at best in terms of modern necessity and the likely initial motivation for the clause. Secondly where is this connection between the assumption that gun ownership is a supposed human right and the Second Ammendment? That's an separate argument entirely and is very debatable.

The state's role is to provide collective security, it's not simply true that individual freedoms should be protected at any cost and to any extreme case by default, that's a circular argument. How far would you take that absolute argument exactly? Hard drugs like cocaine? Biological weapons? In my view collective security includes restricting gun ownership to police and trained security personnel. Obviously your view differs but it's not logical to claim that by default without any justification as to why you draw the line exactly where you do.

Oh and just out of interest, how likely do you really think that faced with a gun pointing at your face, you'd be able to protect yourself with a loaded and armed firearms conveniently with you at all times (which you of course know how to use) and not tucked away and unarmed in a desk drawer to ensure your 4 year old doesn't get their hands on it?

Don't say criminals are dissuaded by the possibility of concealed weapons, anyone smart enough to conceptualise the above example knows they're empowered instead in any REAL situation.