Elan_
New member
You agree it takes me three times to say something for you to get it? Yea OK. Looks like we're on the same page now. I'll buy you a beer next time you're in PA.
Missouri Legislature upholds 'Stand Your Ground,' concealed carry law — requiring no
- Thread starter Ol'Blue
- Start date
- Status
You agree it takes me three times to say something for you to get it? Yea OK. Looks like we're on the same page now. I'll buy you a beer next time you're in PA.
Woz1976-MT
New member
And, just to include this for comparison with Missouri...
Montana defines "forcible felony" as: "...a felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." [MCA 45-2-101(24)]
Quite similar, and we don't have brimstone and blood raining from the sky here.
If you really want to dig into Montana Code Annotated (state statutes), Montana allows you to use deadly force against anyone in your home -- to include common structures like garages -- without permission who simply uses force against you. There was a case in Kalispell where an estranged husband goes over to the wife's new boyfriend's house. Estranged husband walks into new boyfriend's garage and was told to leave, doesn't, punches new boyfriend, and then starts to walk towards the door leading into the house. New boyfriend shoots and kills estranged husband. Was ruled in District Court as a justifiable homicide.
Montana defines "forcible felony" as: "...a felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." [MCA 45-2-101(24)]
Quite similar, and we don't have brimstone and blood raining from the sky here.
If you really want to dig into Montana Code Annotated (state statutes), Montana allows you to use deadly force against anyone in your home -- to include common structures like garages -- without permission who simply uses force against you. There was a case in Kalispell where an estranged husband goes over to the wife's new boyfriend's house. Estranged husband walks into new boyfriend's garage and was told to leave, doesn't, punches new boyfriend, and then starts to walk towards the door leading into the house. New boyfriend shoots and kills estranged husband. Was ruled in District Court as a justifiable homicide.
Ol'Blue
New member
I can see how that is a good shoot. May not be popular but by LAW it's a clean shoot. Just like the George Zimmerman case. Like it or not the LAW is the Law. Period. Don't like it then start vetoing for different people to chance what you think is broken.
Woz1976-MT
New member
I've argued with many people (surprisingly, many in law enforcement) that what Zimmerman did was legal... maybe not smart, but legal. Just because someone is following you at a distance in a public place (like Zimmerman did to Trevon Martin) does not give you the right to physically assault that person (what Martin did to Zimmerman). I will also say, in my opinion, that Zimmerman most likely has some mental defects as well. I don't care for the guy based on what little I know about him and his displayed attitude/personality type.
With that Montana case, it emphasizes that your home is your "castle". I think too many people take the emotional stance in these cases and forget about basic legal principles.
ToyoDriver
New member
It makes me wonder what kind of individual is against such laws. I'm never, ever, going to walk into another's house and rob or assault or batter anyone. So I am literally worried more about a meteor raining down from the sky and hitting me in the nuts than I am about castle doctrine statutes.
On the other hand, it is comforting knowing that if some ******* does decide to come into my house to rob or assault me I have recourse other than hiding behind the couch and saying "Please, take what you want. My daughter's over there. Don't hurt me."
Why castle doctrine laws are not in place in all 50 states (I used to live in Hawaii. You had better be half dead and in a corner before you shoot somebody) is a travesty, and a sign that the inmates are running the asylum.
I used to think the types that opposed these castle doctrine laws did so because they actually sided with criminals, but I no longer think that is the case. I don't think any (most) politicians actually enjoy making life easier for murderers and rapists; I just think they want the average person to be totally dependent on the government for everything. They think the state should provide healthcare, food, water, jobs, housing, education...and personal protection.
You having a gun and legally being allowed to use it to defend your family doesn't bother them because you might shoot dead a murderer - it bothers them because you do not have to rely on the government for protection.
But I digress...
On the other hand, it is comforting knowing that if some ******* does decide to come into my house to rob or assault me I have recourse other than hiding behind the couch and saying "Please, take what you want. My daughter's over there. Don't hurt me."
Why castle doctrine laws are not in place in all 50 states (I used to live in Hawaii. You had better be half dead and in a corner before you shoot somebody) is a travesty, and a sign that the inmates are running the asylum.
I used to think the types that opposed these castle doctrine laws did so because they actually sided with criminals, but I no longer think that is the case. I don't think any (most) politicians actually enjoy making life easier for murderers and rapists; I just think they want the average person to be totally dependent on the government for everything. They think the state should provide healthcare, food, water, jobs, housing, education...and personal protection.
You having a gun and legally being allowed to use it to defend your family doesn't bother them because you might shoot dead a murderer - it bothers them because you do not have to rely on the government for protection.
But I digress...
RunninInGA
New member
Came across this article today - thought it was interesting enough to post here:
Chicago driving the US murder rate - Business Insider
Chicago driving the US murder rate - Business Insider
Woz1976-MT
New member
This is exactly what some people get, and many do not... while I *want* to instantly get to citizens who call, ask for, and need help, it does take time for law enforcement to get there. I explain it to anyone who asks, that you (the citizen) have to have the tools (firearms, first aid kit, etc.) and knowledge and mindset to defend yourself until I can get there.
I would say, however, that politicians don't care one bit whether you depend on the government or not... thy simply want to get re-elected and keep living off the citizens. Politicians are the biggest abusers of the welfare system.
RunninInGA
New member
Thefishguy77
New member
What we don't want is people carrying firearms for their protection. WTF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gunslinger-13
New member
It's Canada, do you expect anything different?
They do not have good firearm or self defense laws. It's retarded. They want people to rely on the state for everything. Yay Socialism...
You definitely have to tippy toe around keeping a rife/shotgun accessible but you cannot have it for self defence against a perp........and definitely not side arm. It is crazy how the law is but but owning a firearm here is a privilege, that is the sole distinction. I am all for it being a right. As far as Socialism, far from it.
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
Ol'Blue
New member
So I talked to a few friends about this topic and what we came up with was interesting....
So some backround on them. They have pulled triggers for a long time and are some really mellow dudes. In the end we all agreed after a long talk.
Looks like we will be spending more time on the range to be better and faster than everyone who will now be packing heat.
I'm actually starting to look at the cloths I wear again and what will be best with my carry set up etc etc and also will be taking a medical refresher course with my team buddy just for giggles and grins.
So some backround on them. They have pulled triggers for a long time and are some really mellow dudes. In the end we all agreed after a long talk.
Looks like we will be spending more time on the range to be better and faster than everyone who will now be packing heat.
I'm actually starting to look at the cloths I wear again and what will be best with my carry set up etc etc and also will be taking a medical refresher course with my team buddy just for giggles and grins.
Elan_
New member
Jesus. I feel like I've stepped out of reality and into an '80s movie. All you're missing is an Eye of the Tiger montage and this absurdity would be complete.
I am pretty sure Ol' Blue knew he was going to raise some eyebrows with that bit of carry reality....
Ol'Blue
New member
I'm glad that you live in a world of rainbows and unicorns. I'm glad that we live in a democratic society were most people feel safe. Here is the stark reality my friend. On day you might not be so lucky. On that day you will understand were I come from. One day and I hope it never happens you my before a victim of violence. If that day ever comes you will understand that " despite what your mama tells you violence dose solve problems" Good day to you.
Blue
Last edited:
Extra-Titanian
New member
That one's completely understandable. It's an entirely reasonable to assume that the husband was there to inflict harm on the wife.
I think one of the biggest motivators for mandatory training is how much complete and total ignorance there is over our convoluted firearms regulations. They need to be consolidated, streamlined, and applied evenly across the country. I've known too many people who think that there's nothing wrong with firing warning shots in residential areas, or that emptying a magazine trying to hit someone in the leg can't have any negative repercussions. Or that they can shoot someone "for stepping one foot on their property", or if someone yells "I'm gonna kick your ass." Or, like someone else always mentioned, they can kinda hit paper on a range in nice weather, so they "don't need to practice" non optimal situation shooting because they'll just keep their head about them and won't have any problems firing if someone ever trys to kill them.
The fact that, in some states, anyone who's total firearms experience can be summed up in the latest Hollywood blockbuster and the belief that George Zimmerman literally just walked up to some dude and put a round in his face and walked after saying 4 magic words, can walk into a gun store, buy a Glock with an extended magazine, shove it in their waistband and walk out the door into the public realm is mildly disconcerting. Long gone are the days where fathers would buy BB rifles for their kids and set up tin cans in the back yard, the days where the first week of hunting season resulted in 1/4 attendance in more than an almost negligible percentage of schools, the days when people didn't get completely and violently consumed by rage at the smallest inconvenience.
I remember fondly, the last gunshow I went to (got a good deal on a 100 round drum
). One of the guys I was there with, who couldn't keep his mouth shut to save his life, told one of the booth dealers that I'd just bought a SPAS-12 and was having trouble with the gas system. This dude FLIPPED THE HELL OUT. Like I just took a piss on his shoe or something. He's not at a small booth and his tables are loaded with some pretty nice gear, so it's pretty obvious that he's got some sort of connection to the firearms industry. But he just starts screaming at me about how "Bill Clinton made those illegal!" and "The ATF is gonna get me" and "I'm going to prison for decades" and all sorts of shit. Then he tries to hand be a business card for his boss or something and says "Here, talk to him, he'll tell you everything you want to know." I rolled my eyes and walked away.And then there was the time some kid almost got himself a felony for introducing a firearm onto a military installation. I'm standing at the gate checking ID's and this chick rolls up with some dude in the passenger seat. I ask if they have any drugs, firearms, or explosives in the car, the kid says "Yea, I got a gun, I got a permit". I looked at him like he was an idiot (one of my personal issues) and as he's asking "Why?", I point at the nearest "Federal Crime to bring weapons onto government property" sign. His girlfriend promptly breaks down into tears and this guy can't process that they just drove past 3 of the damn things and he didn't notice them. I told them it was no problem, that they can go wait in the visitors center parking lot (my own interpretation of where federal property ends) and call the dude they were supposed to pick up. They waited, he showed up, they left. Sometimes, giant in-your-face signs telling you not to do something just doesn't work. At the same time I was doing this, my partner was giving the same speech to a guy with a crossbow.
EDIT: Holy crap, sorry for the giant rambling...
Last edited:
Ain't that the absolute truth.
-JD-
New member
HAHAHA. I thought you guys would like that story.
Say what you want about freedom, facts don't lie. You're significantly less likely to be killed by a firearm here.
JayceeP
New member
Want to know what I think is retarded? Schools full of kids, theatres full of people, or malls full of shoppers being executed by people who should not have had access to a gun in the first place. We have very good gun laws in my opinion. More restrictive than the US but if you want to own a handgun or AR-15 then go for it- you just need to demonstrate your ability to do so and pass background checks by the RCMP. No we we can't walk around armed like you can in the US but big deal.
As for Socialism... Canada ranks as one of the most economically free countries in the world- often ahead of the US. Ironically, your government is much more indebted than ours and at least we have things to show for it like... a health-care system that is accessible to everyone.
Elan_
New member
Wait a minute. Is this a suggestion that the US has nothing to show for its debt?
- Status
