PDA

View Full Version : People Shootin' Question



SoonerInKCMO
5/18/2008, 08:10 PM
Howdy!

Something I've been wondering for a while with all of the folks on the board that have lots of guns and are big 2nd amendment fans and who talk a lot about how they have the guns for protecting themselves and their family... how many people have you shot? I mean, outside of military service, how many times have you put a cap in someone's *** to protect yourself?

I'm going to be 39 soon and I've lived in my share of bad neighborhoods in OKC, Minneapolis and KC... and I've never, ever been in a situation where my having a gun would've made the situation better. Ever. How 'bout y'all? In fact, there have been a few situations in North Minneapolis and East Kansas City where having a concealed weapon could've made things worse - pull one out when there are half a dozen other people that are probably packing and all you're going to do is get a bunch of folks killed.

:texan: :pop:

Turd_Ferguson
5/18/2008, 08:17 PM
Never shot nobody. Would never pull it unless I'm gonna pull the trigger. It's always there for safety.

StoopTroup
5/18/2008, 08:22 PM
Twice. I had a gun on me, kept me from being robbed, however it might have been more than twice if someone had been planning to try and jack the night deposit.

I've faced two pit bulls that I would have shot if I hadn't made into my car.

As far as people...once the carry law changed in Oklahoma....things have felt different when your out and about. I feel safer with it than without it. Hopefully nothing will ever happen the requires me to use it on another human being.

As far as a concealed weapon making something worse...I agree with you...you have to know where you are.

I can't have one in my vehicle where I work. Since it's Federal Property, it's a NO-NO. I don't go to many places after I leave work unless it's needed.

Also...if you've made it this long in your life without one, I would think your doing great so why change. I've just seen a few different things happen that make me a little uncomfortable anymore.

I've been followed by road rage idiots too. I usually just call the cops on the cell if they don't back off...but what if I ran out of gas with the wrong guys following. It could have been a different story had the Cops had gotten to the scene on time I guess.

StoopTroup
5/18/2008, 08:22 PM
Never shot nobody. Would never pull it unless I'm gonna pull the trigger. It's always there for safety.

Agreed.

SCOUT
5/18/2008, 08:26 PM
I've never used an airbag but I feel better having one.

SoonerInKCMO
5/18/2008, 08:27 PM
I've been followed by road rage idiots too. I usually just call the cops on the cell if they don't back off...but what if I ran out of gas with the wrong guys following. It could have been a different story had they gotten to the scene on time.

Maybe if you'd drive a little better... ;)

StoopTroup
5/18/2008, 08:28 PM
Maybe if you'd drive a little better... ;)

Some things will never ever change. :D

Jerk
5/18/2008, 08:37 PM
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/253/whycarry3910iv2.jpg

olevetonahill
5/18/2008, 08:38 PM
I plead the 5th

SoonerInKCMO
5/18/2008, 08:39 PM
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/253/whycarry3910iv2.jpg

I knew a cop in Tulsa that was about 115 pounds... and hot. I would've rather carried her than a gun. :D

Turd_Ferguson
5/18/2008, 08:39 PM
I plead the 5thHeh. Your under anonimmmiitty. Tell us the whole story!:D

Jerk
5/18/2008, 08:41 PM
I knew a cop in Tulsa that was about 115 pounds... and hot. I would've rather carried her than a gun. :D

I've seen some hawtie LEO's out there that made me almost wish I was getting pulled over, handcuffed, and searched.

I couldn't afford the ticket, though.

olevetonahill
5/18/2008, 08:42 PM
Heh. Your under anonimmmiitty. Tell us the whole story!:D

Uh-Uh

Turd_Ferguson
5/18/2008, 08:42 PM
I knew a cop in Tulsa that was about 115 pounds... and hot. I would've rather carried her than a gun. :DThere's a OHP in OKC that is hot as hell.... I'd let her handcuff me anytime!

Jerk
5/18/2008, 08:44 PM
btw- a serious answer to your question. I never shot anyone, and hope I never do. The closest I came is back in 2004 when a drunk man showed up at my door at 10:30pm acting like a lunatic. Real aggressive and crazy, and I had no idea who he was. Anyway....I see it like this...most people who carry guns, whether they be citizens or cops, will never use them. But, man, if you ever need one, then you really need one. Does this make sense?

Jerk
5/18/2008, 08:44 PM
There's a OHP in OKC that is hot as hell.... I'd let her handcuff me anytime!

Does she drive a tahoe (or maybe it was an Expedition).

I've seen her.

Turd_Ferguson
5/18/2008, 08:49 PM
Does she drive a tahoe (or maybe it was an Expedition).

I've seen her.Don't know. She's a spokesperson for the OHP. Long black hair in a pony tail and a tiny little thang. I used to see her out with speeders on I-44 and then I sat next to her table at Ron's Hamburger's one day. She looks better in person than on TV:hot:

Jerk
5/18/2008, 08:49 PM
Don't know. She's a spokesperson for the OHP. Long black hair in a pony tail and a tiny little thang. I used to see her out with speeders on I-44 and then I sat next to her table at Ron's Hamburger's one day. She looks better in person than on TV:hot:

Nah, that's not her. I know who you're talking about tho'. The chick that's always on TV anything bad happens on the highway.

Viking Kitten
5/18/2008, 08:59 PM
Betsy Randolph, AKA "Trooper Hottie" to the guys I work with.

olevetonahill
5/18/2008, 09:01 PM
Betsy Randolph, AKA "Trooper Hottie" to the guys I work with.

Do they say that to her Face or are they wussies ?

Viking Kitten
5/18/2008, 09:07 PM
Do they say that to her Face or are they wussies ?

Nah, they're all respectful to her face. I even let 'em have first dibs on OHP stories, because that's the kind of gal I am.

proud gonzo
5/18/2008, 09:27 PM
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/253/whycarry3910iv2.jpg
hehehe

honestly, though, i probably shoot better than most cops.

Rogue
5/18/2008, 09:43 PM
I haven't had to. I have guns for all kinds of reasons.
Guns for shootin' targets, guns for shootin' critters and birds, and guns for collecting. All of 'em could be people-shooters.

I don't keep relics in the truck or within reach, shotguns under my seat, or .22LRs nearby, but they're all handy for the jobs I use 'em for.

def_lazer_fc
5/18/2008, 10:16 PM
i just carry my bazooka. no one ****s with you then. nobody.

Jerk
5/18/2008, 10:24 PM
i just carry my bazooka. no one ****s with you then. nobody.

Did you find one at the gun show with LAS?

r5TPsooner
5/18/2008, 10:25 PM
I have owned a hand gun since 1999 and have never shot anyone. However, around Thanksgiving my door bell rang around 1:45 in the morning. It wasn't your normal ringing of a door bell but someone that just kept hitting the damned thing over and over again. I jumped out of bed, told the wife to grab the phone and secure the kids while I grabbed my gun and had the hammer pulled back.

When I got to the door no one was there and the cops showed up 2 hours (no kidding) later.

I was willing and ready to protect my family without a 2nd thought.

def_lazer_fc
5/18/2008, 10:25 PM
i make my own. its really just a series of paper towel rolls spray painted though. dont tell anyone.

def_lazer_fc
5/18/2008, 10:26 PM
the only guns i need are the two that are connected to my upper torso. :D

M
5/18/2008, 10:28 PM
Nah, they're all respectful to her face. I even let 'em have first dibs on OHP stories, because that's the kind of gal I am.

Do you get first dibs on astronaut stories?

SicEmBaylor
5/18/2008, 10:45 PM
The second amendment doesn't have a damned thing to do with hunting or protecting yourself though both are certainly welcome byproducts.

The 2nd amendment is about keeping the government honest as the last means for securing your own rights and liberty. ANY restriction on ANY weapon system is an infringement on our fundamental right to keep government honest at gun point if necessary.

The rest of the constitution is utterly useless without a well armed population.

Chuck Bao
5/18/2008, 11:37 PM
The second amendment doesn't have a damned thing to do with hunting or protecting yourself though both are certainly welcome byproducts.

The 2nd amendment is about keeping the government honest as the last means for securing your own rights and liberty. ANY restriction on ANY weapon system is an infringement on our fundamental right to keep government honest at gun point if necessary.

The rest of the constitution is utterly useless without a well armed population.

It takes a little more than home ownership of guns to keep a government honest and safeguard personal liberties these days. It's pretty easy to see what has happened in Tibet and Burma.

I want Youtube to be named an international heritage site and protected.

tommieharris91
5/18/2008, 11:46 PM
I want Youtube to be named an international heritage site and protected.

I've been told international law is VERY weak. Have fun getting every nation to agree with this.

Chuck Bao
5/18/2008, 11:56 PM
I've been told international law is VERY weak. Have fun getting every nation to agree with this.

Rights are not easily obtained. I know it will be a fight.

I would like it if the US government did enshrine the ability to upload video as a right of all US citizens and then the state department try to push the same for all freedom loving countries.

I can dream, can't I?

tommieharris91
5/19/2008, 12:06 AM
I can dream, can't I?

If Thailand will let you... :pop:

LoyalFan
5/19/2008, 12:08 AM
Howdy!
...how many people have you shot? I mean, outside of military service, how many times have you put a cap in someone's *** to protect yourself?...
:texan: :pop:

One, protecting someone other than self. Received apologies from the parents of the defunct punk (age 16) and a pat on the back from the local PD.
A long time ago.
Not proud of the event, but proud of being prepared and doing what had to be done.

LF

olevetonahill
5/19/2008, 01:07 AM
Nah, they're all respectful to her face. I even let 'em have first dibs on OHP stories, because that's the kind of gal I am.

Tole you Im fallin in Love wit you :D :hot:

Okla-homey
5/19/2008, 05:28 AM
The second amendment doesn't have a damned thing to do with hunting or protecting yourself though both are certainly welcome byproducts.

The 2nd amendment is about keeping the government honest as the last means for securing your own rights and liberty. ANY restriction on ANY weapon system is an infringement on our fundamental right to keep government honest at gun point if necessary.

The rest of the constitution is utterly useless without a well armed population.

Note this day. I actually generally agree with and adopt the above quote with one reservation. Some restrictions on firearms ownership (like no guns for nutcases or convicted violent felons) are reasonable. Also, I draw the line at nuclear weapons. I don't think you can make a good case for private ownership of nukes even under the most expansive interpretation of the 2d amendment.

I guess eight years of undergrad at Baylor pays off sooner or later.;)

Rogue
5/19/2008, 05:34 AM
The second amendment doesn't have a damned thing to do with hunting or protecting yourself though both are certainly welcome byproducts.

The 2nd amendment is about keeping the government honest as the last means for securing your own rights and liberty. ANY restriction on ANY weapon system is an infringement on our fundamental right to keep government honest at gun point if necessary.

The rest of the constitution is utterly useless without a well armed population.

Sic, I agree that a major intent of the 2nd is for the people to be able to overthrow the gubmint, by force, if necessary.

To that end, we should be allowed to own tanks and fighter jets, but I digress.

Suffice it to say that I'm pretty sure the founders also saw guns as a means of protection. From eath other, invading forces, injuns, etc.

Okla-homey
5/19/2008, 05:45 AM
If you read Federalist Papers #46 and #79, you will see James Madison (who drafted the 2d amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) arguing for a standing army.

In those papers, Madison told his fellow Americans there was no need to worry about the army's use to subjugate the People because private keeping and bearing of arms was vouchsafed in the Constitution thus insuring the People could fight back.

StoopTroup
5/19/2008, 05:54 AM
Homey...

You don't have any Biological Weapons do you? ;) :D

StoopTroup
5/19/2008, 07:07 AM
John Hines was stabbed to death this weekend at a Quik Trip here in Tulsa. He was followed by a road rager.

Mr. Hines was a Family Man who had never been in trouble with the law.

His Wife was interviewed by KOTV 6 here. She was wearing an OU T-shirt.

John...RIP...Prayers to the Family.

:(


Alexander Busby was booked on a 1st Degree Murder offense.

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8342659_BG1.jpg

KOTV link (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8342659)

Rogue
5/19/2008, 12:28 PM
If you read Federalist Papers #46 and #79, you will see James Madison (who drafted the 2d amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) arguing for a standing army.

In those papers, Madison told his fellow Americans there was no need to worry about the army's use to subjugate the People because private keeping and bearing of arms was vouchsafed in the Constitution thus insuring the People could fight back.

So, are you saying Sic'Em is right? Am I? Are we both? Almost? :confused:
His wife made some good pastries I hear.

TUSooner
5/19/2008, 02:02 PM
btw- a serious answer to your question. I never shot anyone, and hope I never do. The closest I came is back in 2004 when a drunk man showed up at my door at 10:30pm acting like a lunatic. Real aggressive and crazy, and I had no idea who he was....
Geez. I only wanted a sandwich, ******* !!

TUSooner
5/19/2008, 02:17 PM
I think the Founders would be shocked, SHOCKED by the law enforcement establishment we have today -- the FBI, the CIA,* the DEA, the BATF, and who knows how many more federal, state, and local orgainzations trying to protect us and keep us drug-free, etc. etc. Hey Mr. Madison, who needs a standing army?? In order for the 2d Amendment to be worth anything in protecting us from the gubment, we need some private artillery.

*Yeah, them, too. Do you really trust them to only mess with foreigners?

Curly Bill
5/19/2008, 02:21 PM
I think the Founders would be shocked, SHOCKED by the law enforcement establishment we have today -- the FBI, the CIA,* the DEA, the BATF, and who knows how many more federal, state, and local orgainzations trying to protect us and keep us drug-free, etc. etc. Hey Mr. Madison, who needs a standing army?? In order for the 2d Amendment to be worth anything in protecting us from the gubment, we need some private artillery.

*Yeah, them, too. Do you really trust them to only mess with foreigners?

No, I really don't.

Ultimately the best thing to keep government in line and doing what it is supposed to is for the people to be able to resist that government, and that is best done by the use of privately held arms. Now of course we can hope it never comes to that, but the 2nd Amendment was put in place for that very purpose.

Fraggle145
5/19/2008, 02:33 PM
Betsy Randolph, AKA "Trooper Hottie" to the guys I work with.

Ummm we need to get this thread back on track...

It is WORTHLESS without pics.

Curly Bill
5/19/2008, 02:35 PM
We need a poll: should there be a special forum for "Trooper Hottie"

Harry Beanbag
5/19/2008, 05:36 PM
I think the Founders would be shocked, SHOCKED by the law enforcement establishment we have today -- the FBI, the CIA,* the DEA, the BATF, and who knows how many more federal, state, and local orgainzations trying to protect us and keep us drug-free, etc. etc. Hey Mr. Madison, who needs a standing army?? In order for the 2d Amendment to be worth anything in protecting us from the gubment, we need some private artillery.

*Yeah, them, too. Do you really trust them to only mess with foreigners?



You can buy bazookas and hand grenades at California gun shows. That should even the playing field some. :D

soonerscuba
5/19/2008, 05:41 PM
This is pretty simple, if I own a gun, it's far, far, far, far more likely to shoot a child than home invader, so I don't have one. That said, I don't believe in snoopin' round your property, so knock your self out on the arms, but be ready for the clink when your kid takes a blast though.

SicEmBaylor
5/19/2008, 06:12 PM
My dad kept guns all around the house growing up. He had, quite literally, barrels full of black powder (for re-enacting) in his "ammo closet." I never touched any of his guns, and he never had to tell me not to. I knew what guns would do from the earliest age and knew I could hurt myself by playing with them.

It's sort of cruel to say but if your kid knows what a gun can do and the dangers involved but chooses to play with them anyway and gets hurt...well maybe there is something to social darwinism.

Sooner_Havok
5/19/2008, 06:32 PM
The second amendment doesn't have a damned thing to do with hunting or protecting yourself though both are certainly welcome byproducts.

The 2nd amendment is about keeping the government honest as the last means for securing your own rights and liberty. ANY restriction on ANY weapon system is an infringement on our fundamental right to keep government honest at gun point if necessary.

The rest of the constitution is utterly useless without a well armed population.

You know, I agree with you on that. Thats why the Third amendment is there too. Putting soldiers in your house is a cheap and easy way of spying. Quarter soldiers in one's house and they couldn't plot the overthrow of a corrupt government.

One problem though. The civil war pretty much showed that:
1) Trying to secede from the Union is illegal.
2) Trying to topple early 19th century US war machine was not easy.

What chance would we have today to overthrow a corrupt US government, what with wire taps and eleventy billion armed government entities?

Rogue
5/19/2008, 06:33 PM
I'm tellin' ya folks, the Founders knew that the Canadians couldn't be trusted.
Thus, the 2nd Amendment.




















;)

Sooner_Havok
5/19/2008, 06:38 PM
Best amendment that has been thrown away:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

Good idea, wonder why we tossed it?

SicEmBaylor
5/19/2008, 06:44 PM
Best amendment that has been thrown away:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

Good idea, wonder why we tossed it?

1. Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression destroyed the supremacy of state action when Federal action is not explicitly enumerated.
2. The 17th Amendment
3. The gradual change in the American people from looking toward their local elected officials to solve most domestic issues to looking toward the Federal government to solve those same issues.

As the nation has gone from being a constitutional Republic created and consisting of a series of individual states to a strong centralized power the need to have powers that are strictly reserved to the states becomes increasingly irrelevant.

SicEmBaylor
5/19/2008, 06:46 PM
You know, I agree with you on that. Thats why the Third amendment is there too. Putting soldiers in your house is a cheap and easy way of spying. Quarter soldiers in one's house and they couldn't plot the overthrow of a corrupt government.

One problem though. The civil war pretty much showed that:
1) Trying to secede from the Union is illegal.
2) Trying to topple early 19th century US war machine was not easy.

What chance would we have today to overthrow a corrupt US government, what with wire taps and eleventy billion armed government entities?

1. The WONA did not show that secession is illegal. It showed that those who are of that opinion won a war to settle what was strictly a political issue.
2. Agreed though to be fair at the beginning of the aforementioned conflict there wasn't much of a "war machine" to be toppled...it was created pretty fast though....unfortunately.

Sooner_Havok
5/19/2008, 06:50 PM
2. Agreed though to be fair at the beginning of the aforementioned conflict there wasn't much of a "war machine" to be toppled...it was created pretty fast though....unfortunately.

and we never looked back :D

SicEmBaylor
5/19/2008, 06:53 PM
and we never looked back :D

Well that is sort of a natural byproduct of the war. Without the foundation for Federal power and centralization that was created by the war we likely could not have fought two world wars or established ourselves as the pre-eminent economic and military super power that we are today. In fact, there's absolutely now way that it could have happened so the creation of a large standing national army is a natural consequence of centralization.

Sooner_Havok
5/19/2008, 06:57 PM
Well that is sort of a natural byproduct of the war. Without the foundation for Federal power and centralization that was created by the war we likely could not have fought two world wars or established ourselves as the pre-eminent economic and military super power that we are today. In fact, there's absolutely now way that it could have happened so the creation of a large standing national army is a natural consequence of centralization.

I don't entirely buy that. It would have been harder to organize the state militias into a united fighting force, but I think it could have been done. But, we went down the path and there ain't no turning back I suppose

SicEmBaylor
5/19/2008, 06:58 PM
There ain't no turning back I suppose

We'll see about that. ;)

Anywhoo, it's an interesting debate to be sure. I don't think the trouble would have been in organizing the state militias into a national army -- I think the problem would have been convincing the various state governments to give their consent for their state militias to fight a European war.

Sooner_Havok
5/19/2008, 07:04 PM
We'll see about that. ;)

Anywhoo, it's an interesting debate to be sure. I don't think the trouble would have been in organizing the state militias into a national army -- I think the problem would have been convincing the various state governments to give their consent for their state militias to fight a European war.

True, but since the central government was charged with conducting relations with foreign governments and defending the states against foreign threats, I say it could have gotten it done

AggieTool
5/19/2008, 09:46 PM
I honestly think only AUTOMATIC weapons should be legal.;)

StoopTroup
5/20/2008, 09:05 AM
I'm hearing now that John had his kids in the car and they watched their Dad die. I can't imagine what's going on with the Family right now.

Prayers to them all.

ST


John Hines was stabbed to death this weekend at a Quik Trip here in Tulsa. He was followed by a road rager.

Mr. Hines was a Family Man who had never been in trouble with the law.

His Wife was interviewed by KOTV 6 here. She was wearing an OU T-shirt.

John...RIP...Prayers to the Family.

:(



http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8342659_BG1.jpg

KOTV link (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8342659)

olevetonahill
5/20/2008, 09:09 AM
Dayum
IN