20/20 Friday (WARNING: Gun Control thread!)

[Richard G]

You keep saying the Supreme Law of the Land suprecedes the state law. How funny is that? I take it you aren't in favor of states' rights?

This is the heart of the matter. I am in favor of CONSTITUTIONAL rights. No state has the authority to supercede the Bill of Rights. New York, along with Chicago, Washington D.C., and California, are all doing their best to do so.

What do all those cities have in common? Left wing, liberal nutbags in office, who don't give a rats ass about individual liberty.

 

[Guest]

Well, what sort of sense does that make? Are you saying that someone has to wait until there's an intruder, hope he'll let you out of your house to go buy a gun (if any gun stores are even open at the time), then let you back in where you can threaten him with the gun, and hope he doesn't murder your family in the meantime???

This just gets kookier and kookier....

Yes. Kookier and kookier.

Mr. Dixon chose not to register his gun. He broke the law. That is a completely separate issue from the burglar incident and you know it.

Or do you somehow believe that the registering of his gun, or the not registering of his gun, would have changed the events of the universe to cause the burglar to come to his house?

That's a question that can only be asked out of ignorance. The Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the US Constitution) sets up states' rights, within certain limitations, one of those being that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution does not set up states' rights. Surely you know better than that! You like to shout about the tenth amendment so much....

Speaking of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is open to a lot of interpretation, as our law history shows.

The thing is, shanek, I don't like the idea of having to register a gun. But then, I don't like abortion, either. But the law, and the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution (and not yours), says I have to live with both.

I don't like the idea of my next door neighbor being able to buy a tank, either. And, thankfully, the Supreme Court does agree with me on that. As you are a Libertarian, I would guess that you disagree.

How do you define "well regulated" ???

 

[scotth]

Yes. Kookier and kookier.

Mr. Dixon chose not to register his gun. He broke the law. That is a completely separate issue from the burglar incident and you know it.

You keep going to this.

Do you read only what suits you?

He legally purchased the gun in Florida. He just moved to NY, and was in the process of getting it registered locally.

 

[flannery]

You keep going to this.

Do you read only what suits you?

He legally purchased the gun in Florida. He just moved to NY, and was in the process of getting it registered locally.

Does the law require that you get a permit before possessing the gun?

If you can buy a gun and then register it (which I doubt), then I don't think Mr. Dixon has a thing to worry about, because he would not be in violation of the law.

 

[Guest]

Once again, I have accidentally posted under my wife's forum name, flannery. That's what happens when you post at work and then come home to continue the conversation, and your wife was on earlier that day unbeknownst to you, and you forget that the forum automatically logs you on as the last user.

Sorry if anyone got confused.

 

[scotth]

Does the law require that you get a permit before possessing the gun?

If you can buy a gun and then register it (which I doubt), then I don't think Mr. Dixon has a thing to worry about, because he would not be in violation of the law.

He didn't buy the gun in NY. He bought in FL.... legally.

He moved to NY.

It is reported that he had a registration in process with NY.

By beginning the registration, he is announcing to NY that he has a firearm in his possession. It would seem (maybe wrongly) that if NY considered it to be a legal problem for him to possess the gun while the registration was going through, they should/would request to at least impound the gun during the process.

 

[The Fool]

Once again, I have accidentally posted under my wife's forum name, flannery. That's what happens when you post at work and then come home to continue the conversation, and your wife was on earlier that day unbeknownst to you, and you forget that the forum automatically logs you on as the last user.

Sorry if anyone got confused.

sure luke......c'mon, admit it you are a sad lonely guy and this "wife" Id is just a sockpuppet Hang on....maybe its you thats the sockpuppet?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Couldn't agree more.

WHO could stand by and see thier family in peril and not act?

I suppose you could ask the guy downstairs to discuss the rights and wrongs over coffee and a cake!

What really annoys me about the article is how they arrested the guy that shot the intruder. That is crazy.

There seems to be this new form of judicial thought emerging where no citizen can defend from criminals because it violates their "constitutional rights".

Well, what about the constitutional rights to be alive that the victims of the home invasion suffered and the potential dangerousness of the intruder?

If someone robs someone inside their home via home invasion and the homeowner guns them down, that is being an American. Or if the home invader gets eaten alive by a pack of starving Dobermans, that is justice. No one has the right to go on a person's private property, especially their home where their harmless, innocent family is, and rob them. No way.

All NY politicians have to get laughed out of office if this arrest stands, then judicial impeachments can follow. It is not illegal to be an American. Americans are living, breathing and walking US Constitutions.

JK

 

[corplinx]

No one has the right to go on a person's private property, especially their home where their harmless, innocent family is, and rob them. No way.

That allows too much wiggle room for people to debate the what the right to private property is and if it can be defended with lethal force.

I think the main thing is, you have to assume that a home invader is armed no matter what. Even if they aren't brandishing a weapon, you have to assume they have one on them. This is why when you find a home invader you _always_ put them down. You don't hold them at gunpoint for the cops to arrive, you dont try to fight them hand to hand, you don't try to club them with the baseball bat you leave by the door.

 

[Andalyn]

Yes. Kookier and kookier.

Mr. Dixon chose not to register his gun. He broke the law. That is a completely separate issue from the burglar incident and you know it.

Or do you somehow believe that the registering of his gun, or the not registering of his gun, would have changed the events of the universe to cause the burglar to come to his house?





The Constitution does not set up states' rights. Surely you know better than that! You like to shout about the tenth amendment so much....

Speaking of the Second Amendment:



This is open to a lot of interpretation, as our law history shows.

The thing is, shanek, I don't like the idea of having to register a gun. But then, I don't like abortion, either. But the law, and the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution (and not yours), says I have to live with both.

I don't like the idea of my next door neighbor being able to buy a tank, either. And, thankfully, the Supreme Court does agree with me on that. As you are a Libertarian, I would guess that you disagree.

How do you define "well regulated" ???

The Constitution, nor the Supreme Court says you have to live with the registration of Firearms. Not directly anyway. There is no firearm registration in Oklahoma, for instance. It's the State (or city) in which you live.

Also, if you have the cash - you can buy a tank. The Supreme Court does not prohibit you from such a purchase. There is a Doctor in our local area that owns a few tanks, as well as other military vehicles. He isn't the only person either. BTW - This Doctor also owns a minigun. Know what that is?

On the 2nd Amendment and "well regulated": It's all about the comma!!!!

 

[Troll]

Oh my. Are you serious? A crack dealer who steals a gun is entitled to it?

I've heard some strange theories about what the second amendment means but this one is really out there. I think I should drop out of this discussion right now.

I need a vacation anyway. See y'all soon and hopefully someone will decide to eject the crazies by then, before they're all that's left. (Not meaning you Shanek, you're usually more sane than this...)

what sort of moronic view is that? the me that steals your car is entitled to it? You mention theft, a crime and say someone is entitled? Are you normally this inept?

 

[Troll]

You have the right to leagally obtain, not steal, a firearm. You have the standard right to lose that right if you misuse a firearm. UIt's just that simple. He didn't misuse the firearm. he merely failed to read up on the variations in laws from state to state.

 

[a_unique_person]

what are the odds that for the one robbery that was interrupted by a gun owner, there were just as many injuries caused by guns being misused. I too have heard all the stories of hunters and their drinking and shooting, and the guns that are not stored securely and are then misused, or the guns used in massacres by formerly law abiding citizens who obtained their guns totally legally.

 

[Troll]

what are the odds that for the one robbery that was interrupted by a gun owner, there were just as many injuries caused by guns being misused. I too have heard all the stories of hunters and their drinking and shooting, and the guns that are not stored securely and are then misused, or the guns used in massacres by formerly law abiding citizens who obtained their guns totally legally.

Guns being misused? Like maybe actually stolen as is the case of over 85% of gun related crimes in the US? Wait. does that mean that if you steal or illegally obtain a gun that you may be prone to criminal behavior? Does that mean if you legally obtain one that you may be prone to follow the law and use a gun in a legal manner? does all this mean that law abiding citizens abide by the law and that criminals don't?

 

[a_unique_person]

Guns being misused? Like maybe actually stolen as is the case of over 85% of gun related crimes in the US? Wait. does that mean that if you steal or illegally obtain a gun that you may be prone to criminal behavior? Does that mean if you legally obtain one that you may be prone to follow the law and use a gun in a legal manner? does all this mean that law abiding citizens abide by the law and that criminals don't?

you make it sound like there is are two societies out there, the criminals and the non criminal. That is a ridiculous simplification of what crime really is.

But apart from that, I was talking about the misuse of guns, drunken hunters, columbine bowlers, kids playing, parents fighting. Most criminals seem to kill each other with guns, not victims.

 

[Troll]

you make it sound like there is are two societies out there, the criminals and the non criminal. That is a ridiculous simplification of what crime really is.

But apart from that, I was talking about the misuse of guns, drunken hunters, columbine bowlers, kids playing, parents fighting. Most criminals seem to kill each other with guns, not victims.

Oh, nice barb with the bowlers bit. who in that group can you say has misused a gun? And news flash, criminals kill victims with guns not generally other criminals and even then, you've merely proven my point about criminal behavior and guns and the vriminal's lack of respect for human life. Killing in defense of life, with or without a gun is not immoral nor a crime.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, nice barb with the bowlers bit. who in that group can you say has misused a gun? And news flash, criminals kill victims with guns not generally other criminals and even then, you've merely proven my point about criminal behavior and guns and the vriminal's lack of respect for human life. Killing in defense of life, with or without a gun is not immoral nor a crime.

australia was largely a penal colony for many years. it was the dumping ground for all the criminals that wouldn't fit in england. after a while, the crime rate was no different to that of england. how is that explained? many criminals, given jobs in the new colony, went straight because they could get work. the troops to guard them were often more criminal than the convicts.

 

[Troll]

australia was largely a penal colony for many years. it was the dumping ground for all the criminals that wouldn't fit in england. after a while, the crime rate was no different to that of england. how is that explained? many criminals, given jobs in the new colony, went straight because they could get work. the troops to guard them were often more criminal than the convicts.

And that answers the question I asked you in what way? Misdirection? Seems to be a common trait among your kind.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well this is more on gun control in general, but I find the idea of millions of red necks packing heat to be pretty damn scary.

I know some people think it will be used for self-defense(never mind it empowers the offense as well) but the idea seems laughable.

3 AM, some armed, professional criminals enter a house. Bob, our middle aged, rather obese, suburbanite hero decides to take a stand. He somehow has enough time to unlock his safe, load his gun and undue the safety by the time the criminals reach his bedroom. Bob then manages to take out all four armed men by himself, without any of his family of himself getting seriously hurt; way to go superdad.

Now if you ask me, there's something wrong with scenerio. Something I like to call "probability" which speaks against the average civilian effectively fighting off armed robbers.

It seems to me the civilian will only manage to get himself shot under such conditions. Now there is the chance the criminal(s) will not come with guns of his or her own, but

a) you are probably not going to know this when the confrontation starts.

b) is the small chance of this really reason enough to allow all criminals and psychopaths easy access to weaponry.

Lets not forget most murders are what are called "crimes of passion" as well, meaning they are committed by people during extremely emotional times. This would probably be avoided if they didn't have such an easy way to kill people i.e. guns. Now I imagine they can use knives, but you can counter that rather easily with, lets say, a baseball bat or by running away.

I've also heard it mentioned that we need guns in case the government decides to opress us.



Please. Imagine this scenerio. a professional army with tanks,choppers,assault rifles,trained/professional soldiers vs what? a mob of civilians, scared ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, armed with hunting rifles.

"Yee haw, just shoot em there tanks in their weak spots!"

It'd be a slaughter. The days of civilian revolutions are over.

If the government really decided on such an action we can only hope for one of three things 1) Reform. 2) Rebelion within the army or government. 3) Foreign invasion.

Armed civilians would make little to no difference, and would probably end up getting themselves as well as others killed. You certainly wouldn't see me going out to meet Navy Seals, Delta Force and Rangers on the battlefield, even if you gave me a chain gun, let alone a shotgun.

Seriously, I think these pro-gun advocates watch too many action movies.

In real life if civilians try to stand up to professional armies or armed criminals, they get butchered. Maybe use up some of the enemies ammo. That's about the extent of their effectiveness.

This is more true with the more professional and high-tech the given army is, and the US army is pretty damn professional and high-tech.

 

[Troll]

I'm actually more of a comedy or horror movie type of guy as I've seen action films and know how unrealistic they are. But if you want to base your view of guns on them, then be my guest.

Sure you're going to hear about criminal misuse of weapons, including golf clubs used to beat people to death. crime sells. It sells much more than the stories that happen daily where someone with a legal firearm legally used said firearm to defend themselves of another. I don't know why it sells more, it just seems to do so. You have to actually look for the stories of good and legitimate use of firearms but you can rest assured that you will be fed sotries about the illegal use of them.