Double Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edited 5/9/11 15:00pm]

Graycap23 said:

TD3 said:

Yes it is, Georgia is a "right to carry" state.

P.S. Even so, "right to carry" state's require some type of registration & permit process.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edited 5/9/11 10:17am]

Not true. U can carry a gun in your car in Ga, without a permit.

[Edited 5/9/11 10:20am]

The operative word here is some type........ though I should said and/or

In the state of Georgia if you own a "dangerous weapon" it has to be registered in complice with the National Firearm Act of 1934 and the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. To carry a concealed weapon in the state of Georgia (with the exception of your home, car, or place of business) you have to have a weapons carry license. "Weapons carry license" is nothing more than a permit.

So if I move to Georgia I can have a gun in my car and not have to bother with registration? Is that right?

[img:$uid]http://fletcherprince.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/stuffed-suitcase1.jpg[/img:$uid]

HotGritz said:

So if I move to Georgia I can have a gun in my car and not have to bother with registration? Is that right?

[img:$uid]http://fletcherprince.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/stuffed-suitcase1.jpg[/img:$uid]

Yes. In a lot of instances Georgia will recognize the carry permit issued by another state, this is called Right To Carry reciprocity.

Any eligible, unlicensed person can transport a loaded firearm in any private passenger motor vehicle, as long as it is fully in view or in the vehicle's glove compartment. A person who is licensed may carry a handgun in any location in a motor vehicle, when they've obtained a weapons carry license.

Shiiit!!!! I need to have a summer home in Georgia for the gun law alone!

HotGritz said:

Shiiit!!!! I need to have a summer home in Georgia for the gun law alone!

Lord hav' mercy.

As long as you aren't a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, under court (misdemeanor) supervision, haven't been treated for substance abuse, or been hospitalized as an inpatient at any mental hospital for a number of years, carry on.

TD3 said:

HotGritz said:

Shiiit!!!! I need to have a summer home in Georgia for the gun law alone!

Lord hav' mercy.

As long as you aren't a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, under court (misdemeanor) supervision, haven't been treated for substance abuse, or been hospitalized as an inpatient at any mental hospital for a number of years, carry on.

now wit all of dat....how the hell Allen Iverson and T.I. get to have guns in their cars?

HotGritz said:

TD3 said:

Lord hav' mercy.

As long as you aren't a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, under court (misdemeanor) supervision, haven't been treated for substance abuse, or been hospitalized as an inpatient at any mental hospital for a number of years, carry on.

now wit all of dat....how the hell Allen Iverson and T.I. get to have guns in their cars?

Iverson pleaded out and T.I., well he got time in the federal pokey.

HotGritz said:

Um.....sorry but..... A CAR IS NOT WORTH MORE THAN A HUMAN LIFE.

yeah the kid was a gutter brat and needs to get punished for throwing the rocks (ass beating will suffice) but to think that the child could have been killed or paralyzed and all he did was break a windshield; nah....that is not a case of where punishment fits the crime.

We don't know that the bishop's actions didn't save a life or prevent serious injury.

Do you think the kid would stop after breaking a windshield? If the driver didn't stop, why would the rock thrower?

[Edited 5/9/11 18:15pm]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

itsnotallover said:

So Bishops are bored with molesting kids and now going out maiming them

Self defence is to protect yourself before / during a conflictual event. retaliation is what happens afterwards.

Simply firing the Gun in "Warning shot" manner would have possibly resolved this situation, but alas, he chose not too.

I do not agree with a warning shot. Either he was legitimately felt that he was at danger of serious bodily harm or death or being robbed (which I assume is a legal reason for deadly force in AL)... or he did not. If not then any use of deadly weapon would be a crime. One think I learned in weapon training is Never pull out a gun if you are not ready to use it and have a legal reason to do so.

Nor do I - But as I am not American, I kind of - tbh - don't get the whole "Carry a gun" thing. The point was made as to show there was more ways to settle this than popping him a new hole.

Personally I think any law / right that allows a civilian to be armed is a mental one. People are barely responsible enough to get their Taxes right and I would be interested to see how many people are shot through minor incidents such as road rage etc.

On the other hand, I like the way you are allowed to use your rights to protect your property - here in the UK we are expected to allow the Murderer / rapist / burglar to get on with what they are doing in our homes - If we so much as bitch slap these mofos we can end up in Jail

Welcome to Pussy Law Britain, where Criminals have more human rights than their victims.........

SUPRMAN said:

Tremolina said:

Do you think the kid could have still hit his car with rocks, if he WOULD HAVE?

The kid had already hit his car once.

What about the next car?

And the next?

The kid can keep throwing until someone is injured or killed?

Oh so now the bishop is also allowed to shoot him in order to protect OTHER cars?

This is getting better and better.

In other words: no, you don't think the kid could have hit his car with rocks, if he WOULD HAVE kept on driving.

But let's stop and shoot him anyway.

Tremolina said:

SUPRMAN said:

The kid had already hit his car once.

What about the next car?

And the next?

The kid can keep throwing until someone is injured or killed?

Oh so now the bishop is also allowed to shoot him in order to protect OTHER cars?

This is getting better and better.

In other words: no, you don't think the kid could have hit his car with rocks, if he WOULD HAVE kept on driving.

But let's stop and shoot him anyway.

He was driving when his car was hit with the rock.

Shooting him did protect other cars, did it not?

Or are you thinking that the kid would stop after breaking a rear windshield and realizng the error of his ways?

Tremolina said:

SUPRMAN said:

The kid had already hit his car once.

What about the next car?

And the next?

The kid can keep throwing until someone is injured or killed?

Oh so now the bishop is also allowed to shoot him in order to protect OTHER cars?

This is getting better and better.

In other words: no, you don't think the kid could have hit his car with rocks, if he WOULD HAVE kept on driving.

But let's stop and shoot him anyway.

Um, yeah. Actually.

Spinlight said:

Tremolina said:

Oh so now the bishop is also allowed to shoot him in order to protect OTHER cars?

This is getting better and better.

In other words: no, you don't think the kid could have hit his car with rocks, if he WOULD HAVE kept on driving.

But let's stop and shoot him anyway.

Um, yeah. Actually.

GTFOH

based on what law or right 'actually'?

SUPRMAN said:

Tremolina said:

Oh so now the bishop is also allowed to shoot him in order to protect OTHER cars?

This is getting better and better.

In other words: no, you don't think the kid could have hit his car with rocks, if he WOULD HAVE kept on driving.

But let's stop and shoot him anyway.

He was driving when his car was hit with the rock.

Shooting him did protect other cars, did it not?

Or are you thinking that the kid would stop after breaking a rear windshield and realizng the error of his ways?

So if somebody else is getting his car wrecked in the street I can go and just SHOOT the car wrecker?

hell, let's all just walk out and see if we can go and shoot somebody!

No wonder so many people get shot and killed in the US.

Tremolina said:

SUPRMAN said:

He was driving when his car was hit with the rock.

Shooting him did protect other cars, did it not?

Or are you thinking that the kid would stop after breaking a rear windshield and realizng the error of his ways?

So if somebody else is getting his car wrecked in the street I can go and just SHOOT the car wrecker?

hell, let's all just walk out and see if we can go and shoot somebody!

No wonder so many people get shot and killed in the US.

LOL He is supposedly a christian, I wonder if it even occurred to him to try to talk to the boy and explain that what he was doing was wrong

Did anybody mention yet that the driver could have driven a safe distance away from the rock-thrower, called 911, and waited for the police to arrive?

Efan said:

Did anybody mention yet that the driver could have driven a safe distance away from the rock-thrower, called 911, and waited for the police to arrive?

I am not sure about AL but where I live I am under NO obligation to retreat.

The mere fact that this is a minister who shoots a CHILD is preposterous.

Yes, the kid put people in danger, etc...but like someone said, call 911, or something.

Shooting at a child, no matter the circumstances just reflects a lack of respect for human beings, and the teachings of Christ that this person professes to live by.

Efan said:

Did anybody mention yet that the driver could have driven a safe distance away from the rock-thrower, called 911, and waited for the police to arrive?

Yes

But that apparantly is of no concern. Apparantly, even when you, or your "property" isn't even at risk, you can STILL go out and start shooting kids that are wrecking other people's cars.

Yeah, even as a bishop.

No, really. That's not fucked up. Not at all.

NDRU said:

Tremolina said:

So if somebody else is getting his car wrecked in the street I can go and just SHOOT the car wrecker?

hell, let's all just walk out and see if we can go and shoot somebody!

No wonder so many people get shot and killed in the US.

LOL He is supposedly a christian, I wonder if it even occurred to him to try to talk to the boy and explain that what he was doing was wrong

Are you crazy?

SHOOT THE FUCKING KID!

Tremolina said:

Efan said:

Did anybody mention yet that the driver could have driven a safe distance away from the rock-thrower, called 911, and waited for the police to arrive?

Yes

But that apparantly is of no concern. Apparantly, even when you, or your "property" isn't even at risk, you can STILL go out and start shooting kids that are wrecking other people's cars.

Yeah, even as a bishop.

No, really. That's not fucked up. Not at all.

It's stunning to me. Honestly.

Punish the kid, have him make reparations for the damage he caused, all that...but shoot to kill and ask questions later? America is such a hateful country.

No respect for life whatsoever

ooops sorry, of course abortion should be illegal

Tremolina said:

No respect for life whatsoever

ooops sorry, of course abortion should be illegal

I wonder if the teen had been female and pregnant if a shot aimed at the gut would still have so much support on this thread.

I think there are 2 threads in this topic:

one is the specifics of this case (in which I am thinking the threat level was not high enough to warrant deadly force)

two is about self defense in general. Something I am a big supporter of. I rather not have to ever use such force, I rather the cops come do that. But if it came to that I would. And I should have the right to and not have to worry about being punished over it.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I think there are 2 threads in this topic:

one is the specifics of this case (in which I am thinking the threat level was not high enough to warrant deadly force)

two is about self defense in general. Something I am a big supporter of. I rather not have to ever use such force, I rather the cops come do that. But if it came to that I would. And I should have the right to and not have to worry about being punished over it.

Self-defense has creeped in here, but I don't think it's relevant.

If you are driving along and paying attention to the road, as you should be, there is simply no way you can have all the information you need to be able to justify firing a gun into the air. I firmly do not believe that a driver can have properly assessed what is going on and his actions were both unwarranted and created a dangerous situation for innocent bystanders, presuming there were other people in the area.

SUPRMAN said:

Tremolina said:

So you are saying it's okay to shoot somebody just for trashing your car?

Now defense of life is one thing, but I can just imagine it:

Some asshole kids walk past a car and smash its rearview window. Just for 'fun'.

Owner comes out out all mad, shoots the kids but gets to walk free.

Cuz he is allowed to do that as an act of defense of property.

What a fucking joke.

In the U. S. you can protect life and property.

Except when its a punk ass kid or a woman. THen you are wrong either way. You are safer just lettin them kill you because if you defend yourself, you are getting locked up and they are made into victims.

THe kid deserved some buckshot

Efan said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I think there are 2 threads in this topic:

one is the specifics of this case (in which I am thinking the threat level was not high enough to warrant deadly force)

two is about self defense in general. Something I am a big supporter of. I rather not have to ever use such force, I rather the cops come do that. But if it came to that I would. And I should have the right to and not have to worry about being punished over it.

Self-defense has creeped in here, but I don't think it's relevant.

If you are driving along and paying attention to the road, as you should be, there is simply no way you can have all the information you need to be able to justify firing a gun into the air. I firmly do not believe that a driver can have properly assessed what is going on and his actions were both unwarranted and created a dangerous situation for innocent bystanders, presuming there were other people in the area.

I agree *2nd part* As I have said I do not see how he was justified in shooting. As far as shooting into the air or a warning shot goes. You are then just as responsible for where that bullet ends up. Firing a gun is serious business, and the shooter is responsible as to where it winds up.

NDRU said:

Tremolina said:

So if somebody else is getting his car wrecked in the street I can go and just SHOOT the car wrecker?

hell, let's all just walk out and see if we can go and shoot somebody!

No wonder so many people get shot and killed in the US.

LOL He is supposedly a christian, I wonder if it even occurred to him to try to talk to the boy and explain that what he was doing was wrong

basically, if the kid took out his back windshield, Jesus would have wanted the bishop to turn around and offer his front windshield also.

Tremolina said:

SUPRMAN said:

He was driving when his car was hit with the rock.

Shooting him did protect other cars, did it not?

Or are you thinking that the kid would stop after breaking a rear windshield and realizng the error of his ways?

So if somebody else is getting his car wrecked in the street I can go and just SHOOT the car wrecker?

hell, let's all just walk out and see if we can go and shoot somebody!

No wonder so many people get shot and killed in the US.

Well how about these lowlifes stop fucking with shit? Vandalizing property is no joke and it's expensive. I understand why folks get pissed off. I've had my car windows broken - believe me, nothing would have pleased me more than introduce the perp to my friend, Mr. Louisville Slugger.

Bottom line - don't start nothin', and there won't be nothin'.