My politicly incorrect gun loving thread! Gun lovers step inside!

[Feeling Supersonic]

Want to see the scar on my left nut?

You get your ball bag out for the guys all the time then?... :eek2:

 

[brp]

Thanks, LK.

 

[anitoli]

You get your ball bag out for the guys all the time then?... :eek2:

If you saw my ball bag your eyes would pop bigger than that icon......

 

[Feeling Supersonic]

If you saw my ball bag your eyes would pop bigger than that icon......

You're flirting me with now

 

[zenfly]

I'd like to invite you all to the gun forums I belong to so you can discuss this with guys that know what they're yacking about..

AR15.com
AK47.net
COTEP.ORG
1911 fORUM etc..

I'll give up my guitars long before my guns...

And here are my friends...*mod edited, image deleted - c'mon, you know better*

 

[Feeling Supersonic]

I'd like to invite you all to the gun forums I belong to so you can discuss this with guys that know what they're yacking about..

AR15.com
AK47.net
COTEP.ORG
1911 fORUM etc..

I'll give up my guitars long before my guns...

This guy knows what he's talking about...

 

[gdh1532]

I'd trade my guns for a nice early 70's les paul.

 

[rmlevasseur]

Sir, I am going to approach this as delicately as i can as i see a major contradiction here. If you are a crimminal defense attorney isnt it your job to try to get your clients the softest, lighest sentance even though you are aware that they could be 100% guilty? The irony is you complain about gun crime and yet you defend those who perpetrate the crimes.

As far as i am concerened this, the plea bargain, trading game to get reduced sentencing is a major part of the problem. If you were that concerned about gun crime, you would become a prosecutor and push for sentencing that corresponds to the law i/e 10 years for felony posession not 15 months.

In this scenario the cliche " youre either part of the solution or part of the problem" couldnt ring more true.

No need to be delicate, lol. My skin is about as tough as it gets.

You are right, if you are trained in litigation and the criminal code you can switch between prosecutor and defense attorney quite easily, and i know many attorneys that do just that. The philosophical difference, if you have one (and i do) is how you perceive helping people. I come at it from the approach that the government, if left unchecked, will extort the people when they can. I believe that loss of freedom is second in severity only to loss of life and loss of children. But if you have any faith or belief in American jurisprudence then you would know that this is the best system anyone has ever proposed, and it only stays healthy if everyone does their job. IMO justice only has a chance to come out if each side advocates as strongly for their case as they can, regardless of personal opinion. Do you really think it would be better if you could only have a defense attorney that only negotiated what HE thought was fair? The role of sentencing fairness goes to the judge. That's the guy you gotta worry about.

With that in mind, you are living in an LA Law episode if you think that every attorney takes every case that comes in their door. In fact i probably turn away about 30% of potential new cases because i simply do not feel i can advocate for them or achieve the result they think they should get.

You also don't have to be in favor of crime to be a defense attorney, lol. There are many many crimes that i think are punishable far too severely or are the result of ridiculous prosecutorial requests. And don't even get me started on the juvenile delinquency criminal process, because it fails altogether. I realize its popular to throw attorneys under the bus, but it doesn't mean we all act without conscience. When i argue sentencing for a client, i do my best to make sure the judge knows my clients as well as he can. We already know what he did bad, but without me nobody will know what he did good in his life. I believe that both the defendant and the crime should be sentenced, and not just one. Some mistakes are forgivable, and IMO a veteran with a family holding a job as a well respected teacher but picks up a DWI should be sentenced lighter than the wastoid who just doesn't care. Ultimately it's the judge's job to decide fairness, but i argue what I think is fair in the hopes of making him consider things that he would not have otherwise known. I never argue ridiculous sentences because i would get laughed out of the courtroom. I just try my best, but i too rely on judges to make a fair decision. 99% of the time i do think that happens, but all the public hears is the 1% it didn't.

As for my personal views, i dont dehumanize someone charged with a crime. You say i complain of "gun crime" but who doesn't? I certainly dont complain about legal gun use, admitting already that i learned to shoot early and come from a family of hunters. If i get a nut job that tells me his next offense will be to kill some children, i can guarantee he's not my next client. Again, if you just assume that if that's true for me but not any other defense attorney, I'd suggest you shut off your Law and Order for a while.

In any event, if you would like to take the next five or six years and codify YOUR idea of what the "fair" sentence is for every crime on the books, I'd love to read it, and be so enlightened. Until then i can only argue the sentence that I think my client should get if the judge knows all that they can. Unless you truly want to live in a dictatorship, i suggest you open you eyes and realize that fairness is a pretty wide spectrum, and without me people would likely be seeing the extreme of it every time. Is that how you want government to work?

 

[4STICKS]

No need to be delicate, lol. My skin is about as tough as it gets.

You are right, if you are trained in litigation and the criminal code you can switch between prosecutor and defense attorney quite easily, and i know many attorneys that do just that. The philosophical difference, if you have one (and i do) is how you perceive helping people. I come at it from the approach that the government, if left unchecked, will extort the people when they can. I believe that loss of freedom is second in severity only to loss of life and loss of children. But if you have any faith or belief in American jurisprudence then you would know that this is the best system anyone has ever proposed, and it only stays healthy if everyone does their job. IMO justice only has a chance to come out if each side advocates as strongly for their case as they can, regardless of personal opinion. Do you really think it would be better if you could only have a defense attorney that only negotiated what HE thought was fair? The role of sentencing fairness goes to the judge. That's the guy you gotta worry about.

With that in mind, you are living in an LA Law episode if you think that every attorney takes every case that comes in their door. In fact i probably turn away about 30% of potential new cases because i simply do not feel i can advocate for them or achieve the result they think they should get.

You also don't have to be in favor of crime to be a defense attorney, lol. There are many many crimes that i think are punishable far too severely or are the result of ridiculous prosecutorial requests. And don't even get me started on the juvenile delinquency criminal process, because it fails altogether. I realize its popular to throw attorneys under the bus, but it doesn't mean we all act without conscience. When i argue sentencing for a client, i do my best to make sure the judge knows my clients as well as he can. We already know what he did bad, but without me nobody will know what he did good in his life. I believe that both the defendant and the crime should be sentenced, and not just one. Some mistakes are forgivable, and IMO a veteran with a family holding a job as a well respected teacher but picks up a DWI should be sentenced lighter than the wastoid who just doesn't care. Ultimately it's the judge's job to decide fairness, but i argue what I think is fair in the hopes of making him consider things that he would not have otherwise known. I never argue ridiculous sentences because i would get laughed out of the courtroom. I just try my best, but i too rely on judges to make a fair decision. 99% of the time i do think that happens, but all the public hears is the 1% it didn't.

As for my personal views, i dont dehumanize someone charged with a crime. You say i complain of "gun crime" but who doesn't? I certainly dont complain about legal gun use, admitting already that i learned to shoot early and come from a family of hunters. If i get a nut job that tells me his next offense will be to kill some children, i can guarantee he's not my next client. Again, if you just assume that if that's true for me but not any other defense attorney, I'd suggest you shut off your Law and Order for a while.

In any event, if you would like to take the next five or six years and codify YOUR idea of what the "fair" sentence is for every crime on the books, I'd love to read it, and be so enlightened. Until then i can only argue the sentence that I think my client should get if the judge knows all that they can. Unless you truly want to live in a dictatorship, i suggest you open you eyes and realize that fairness is a pretty wide spectrum, and without me people would likely be seeing the extreme of it every time. Is that how you want government to work?

Trying to wrap my head around this. You believe that "the government, if left unchecked, will extort the people when it can." and "loss of freedom is only secondary to loss of life or loss of a child" ?

The second amendment exists precisly as one of those checks for exactly that purpose.

Don't get me wrong, we need lawyers to do what they do. But as a lawyer friend of mine once said, when governments want to take total control, the first thing they do is always take away peoples guns, then they usually kill all the lawyers.

EDIT: He was a defense atty also, BTW

 

[rmlevasseur]

You think the second amendment was designed to protect people from unjust court decisions? That's what I am talking about here. Just read back about the guy that was ordered to do counseling for a fireworks violation. He just paid the money and did it because he had no counsel. Wouldn't have happened on my watch. In any event, i certainly do think society and governments have become increasingly corrupt, and the second amendment has done nothing to stop it.

I understand the intent of the second amendment, and i do think the intent was legitimate. I will even go so far as to say that the founders concerns about corruption exist as much today as they did then. But sometimes you have to chose the lesser of two evils. There has been just too much irresponsibility when it comes to gun ownership.

 

[anitoli]

No need to be delicate, lol. My skin is about as tough as it gets.

You are right, if you are trained in litigation and the criminal code you can switch between prosecutor and defense attorney quite easily, and i know many attorneys that do just that. The philosophical difference, if you have one (and i do) is how you perceive helping people. I come at it from the approach that the government, if left unchecked, will extort the people when they can. I believe that loss of freedom is second in severity only to loss of life and loss of children. But if you have any faith or belief in American jurisprudence then you would know that this is the best system anyone has ever proposed, and it only stays healthy if everyone does their job. IMO justice only has a chance to come out if each side advocates as strongly for their case as they can, regardless of personal opinion. Do you really think it would be better if you could only have a defense attorney that only negotiated what HE thought was fair? The role of sentencing fairness goes to the judge. That's the guy you gotta worry about.

With that in mind, you are living in an LA Law episode if you think that every attorney takes every case that comes in their door. In fact i probably turn away about 30% of potential new cases because i simply do not feel i can advocate for them or achieve the result they think they should get.

You also don't have to be in favor of crime to be a defense attorney, lol. There are many many crimes that i think are punishable far too severely or are the result of ridiculous prosecutorial requests. And don't even get me started on the juvenile delinquency criminal process, because it fails altogether. I realize its popular to throw attorneys under the bus, but it doesn't mean we all act without conscience. When i argue sentencing for a client, i do my best to make sure the judge knows my clients as well as he can. We already know what he did bad, but without me nobody will know what he did good in his life. I believe that both the defendant and the crime should be sentenced, and not just one. Some mistakes are forgivable, and IMO a veteran with a family holding a job as a well respected teacher but picks up a DWI should be sentenced lighter than the wastoid who just doesn't care. Ultimately it's the judge's job to decide fairness, but i argue what I think is fair in the hopes of making him consider things that he would not have otherwise known. I never argue ridiculous sentences because i would get laughed out of the courtroom. I just try my best, but i too rely on judges to make a fair decision. 99% of the time i do think that happens, but all the public hears is the 1% it didn't.

As for my personal views, i dont dehumanize someone charged with a crime. You say i complain of "gun crime" but who doesn't? I certainly dont complain about legal gun use, admitting already that i learned to shoot early and come from a family of hunters. If i get a nut job that tells me his next offense will be to kill some children, i can guarantee he's not my next client. Again, if you just assume that if that's true for me but not any other defense attorney, I'd suggest you shut off your Law and Order for a while.

In any event, if you would like to take the next five or six years and codify YOUR idea of what the "fair" sentence is for every crime on the books, I'd love to read it, and be so enlightened. Until then i can only argue the sentence that I think my client should get if the judge knows all that they can. Unless you truly want to live in a dictatorship, i suggest you open you eyes and realize that fairness is a pretty wide spectrum, and without me people would likely be seeing the extreme of it every time. Is that how you want government to work?

You brought up some good points.

I think that sentencing should fit the crime and circumstances should be wieghed in. But i have seen it here in news reports where individuals who are convicted felons get busted in posession of guns and basically walk.
They arent supposed to have a gun at all. This is what i am really talking about. Not the guy who after 49 years of being cool get an abnormally high sentence for something stupid like an ounce of pot. You cant predict when someone will enter a life of crime but you can follow trends and history.

I agree with fairness and consideration in law especially probable cause. But i also agree with mandatory minimum sentencing in regard to violent offenders but it doesnt seem to work that way, and i think the criminal element knows this.

I think the big catch 22 here is that everything is so complicated in society and life there is no way you can yank out a simple solution thats going to solve all the issues. So we end up here- thinking what next.

 

[anitoli]

You think the second amendment was designed to protect people from unjust court decisions? That's what I am talking about here. Just read back about the guy that was ordered to do counseling for a fireworks violation. He just paid the money and did it because he had no counsel. Wouldn't have happened on my watch.

I understand the intent of the second amendment, and i do think the intent was legitimate. I will even go so far as to say that the founders concerns about corruption exist as much today as they did then. But sometimes you have to chose the lesser of two evils. There has been just too much irresponsibility when it comes to gun ownership.

As well as too much irreponsibility in Government.

Ultimately the 2nd protects the 1st. The people will not restrict their rights unless guided by some type of ideology like religion or extreme politics.
But governments will restrict rights for many unscrupulous reasons and usually not to societys benefit.

Let me ask you this, if we gave up our guns, would law enforcement do the same? There would be no need right?

Constitutional conflict here. To quote Mao, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".

Its time to start making those accountable for their actions again. The problem is people, nothing else.

 

[rmlevasseur]

As well as too much irreponsibility in Government.

Ultimately the 2nd protects the 1st. The people will not restrict their rights unless guided by some type of ideology like religion or extreme politics.
But governments will restrict rights for many unscrupulous reasons and usually not to societys benefit.

Let me ask you this, if we gave up our guns, would law enforcement do the same? There would be no need right?

Constitutional conflict here. To quote Mao, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".

Its time to start making those accountable for their actions again. The problem is people, nothing else.

I hope you aren't reading me as saying the system is perfect. There is and always be corruption on every level, including law enforcement. I wish we lived in a society where guns weren't collected like trophies, and i wish we lived in a society where i could trust that gun owners were by and large responsible people. But we are seeing a tipping in our country where the damage inflicted by the the irresponsible is starting to outweigh the legitimate purposes of gun ownership. That's not just my opinion, but the popular polling result right now. I don't blame tougher gun control laws on the government, i blame them on the gun owners.

 

[bvoris]

My Babies:
SW M&P 15 .22

Sig P220

Also have a Mossberg pump

 

[Georgiatec]

Between me,thee & the rest of the nuts on here I had to get a Tux on for Lynne's bosses charity do....
Don't tell her you've seen this pic though as she's pregnant,weighty & furious!

Me too kidda...we could be "The Goodfellas"

 

[matt3310]

Love those Bvoris!!! I have a stainless Sig 220 and I swear its the best shooting .45 made!!

 

[Peaty]

The ban was idiotic, what does a bayonet lug have to do with anything lol? Look at these pics below, hunting rifles but if you ad certain features it becomes a "assault rifle" under their description. That is like taking a Ford escort, putting a Porche body over it and calling it a high speed racing sports car.

A civilian semi auto AK or AR is no more lethal than a semi auto hunting rifle, basically the only thing that increases fire power in either is a high capacity magazine no matter what the rifle looks like.

I thought this was a good video illustrating what you are describing:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8]What Is An "Assault Rifle"? - You've Probably Been Lied To - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bvoris]

Love those Bvoris!!! I have a stainless Sig 220 and I swear its the best shooting .45 made!!

Agreed the smoothest .45 I have ever handled. Great pistol!

 

[Clammy]

I hope you aren't reading me as saying the system is perfect. There is and always be corruption on every level, including law enforcement. I wish we lived in a society where guns weren't collected like trophies, and i wish we lived in a society where i could trust that gun owners were by and large responsible people. But we are seeing a tipping in our country where the damage inflicted by the the irresponsible is starting to outweigh the legitimate purposes of gun ownership. That's not just my opinion, but the popular polling result right now. I don't blame tougher gun control laws on the government, i blame them on the gun owners.

I blame people like you. It's people like you who slander and blame millions of good people for the actions of a few thousand bad ones in order to push your anti-gun/anti self-defense agenda. The sad thing is that the media and government are completely infested by people like you, and that bias gets shoved into the average citizens' face non-stop. Purposely ignoring the millions of legitimate uses of firearms, while overly-focusing on the negatives, never considering solutions that will actually save lives, crying crocodile tears, and always beating the "guns bad" drum to death. The mass media in the USA has been on a fuckin feeding frenzy over this (and it's spilled over to the mass media up here, in Canada, too). This is their (and the anti-gun lobby's) wet dream come true: 1 madman kills kids; millions of gun owners pay. People like you disgust me.

 

[dualampman]

I thought this was a good video illustrating what you are describing:

What Is An "Assault Rifle"? - You've Probably Been Lied To - YouTube

Very Good video. this has been around a long time and yet the media in the US was to ignore the information.

I live in California, Land of the 10 round magazine and the 10 day waiting period.

We have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but after the 1st of the year, The politicians have stated here that they are ramping up to propose even strickter laws and imposes tuffer restrictions.

How much safer do they think this will make the public. Criminals dont care about the laws. Stricker laws only affect the law abbiding.
Why do they want to do disarm the average law abiding citizen?

After all the average law abiding citizen isnt the one perpetuating these crimes.
It always some mentally delusional person. Will tuffer laws help the mentally ill? How do you legislate crazy?