 
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4515
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 1:32 pm: |    |
quote:"There is no RIGHT to protect your family and home with a firearm."
Um, on the contrary. Every state in the union recognizes a legal right to use deadly force in order to defend oneself or 3rd persons against the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
That's state law--not Constitutional rights. I think the key phrase there would be "imminent threat of DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM". |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 3770
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 1:41 pm: | |
"That's state law--not Constitutional rights.
So how does that help your argument?
One right is found in the federal constitution and the other is derived from the powers granted to the states by the 10th amendment and enacted through the states' democratic process.
"I think the key phrase there would be "imminent threat of DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM"."
And that's what we have juries for; to determine whether the shooter had a reasonable belief that there was a threat of death or serious bodily harm present.
Again, what is your point here?
(Message edited by thejesus on March 10, 2009) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4517
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 1:59 pm: | |
quote:Again, what is your point here?
If you listen to gun advocates, you will hear arguments that it should be acceptable to carry a gun everywhere, that they should have the right to shoot someone who threatens them (whatever "threaten" may mean), and essentially argue for unfettered access and use of firearms. Any attempt to regulate and restrict use of firearms is perceived as an assault on the Second Amendment. Clearly, this is not the case.
We always hear about the rights, but never the responsibilities inherent with ownership of a deadly implement. It's only after a person commits a murder with a firearm--intentional or not--that the person is labeled "irresponsible" by the larger gun-advocating community.
State laws are *very* different from Constitutionally-protected rights. State laws vary wildly, and can be changed rather easily, so long as they do not violate the Constitution. For example, one cannot invoke protections offered by Texas gun laws if he chooses to violate Michigan gun laws.
I also have the right to be Secure in my Person. I, for one, don't feel secure in my person with a bunch of rednecks and gangsters carrying guns everywhere, threatening to use them at the slightest perceived encroachment. Yet, we never hear how unlimited access to firearms and ammunition impacts that Right, do we? |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 3772
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 2:13 pm: | |
Yikes. I shouldn't have asked. You're all over the place now.
I was merely commenting on your incorrect response to Sstashmoo's statement that the vast majority of gun owners were exercising their right to protect their family and home. You responded by saying that no such right exists, which is incorrect, so I corrected you.
The fact that it is a state right does not help your argument any.
As far as the handful of people on the extreme right who want to keep battle tanks in their backyards, I'm not on their side. I'm for gun rights with reasonable restrictions, same as the President.
For example, I support CCWs but would not feel that my constitutional rights would be violated if I was not able to carry in public in Michigan. I think that's a determination best left to the democratic process.
And the right to be secure in your person refers to unreasonable searches by the government, so I'm not sure how you are linking that one to gun rights. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4518
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 2:21 pm: | |
quote:I was merely commenting on your incorrect response to Sstashmoo's statement that the vast majority of gun owners were exercising their right to protect their family and home. You responded by saying that no such right exists, which is incorrect, so I corrected you.
The fact that it is a state right does not help your argument any.
Maybe the Michigan Constitution defines "the Right to defend your family and property", but you're writing in generalities.
I'm for gun rights as well. But the incessant push for "more guns everywhere" as some sort of solution isn't conducive to civilized society. Should people be allowed to carry firearms into alcohol-serving establishments? Was it the Right of the mentally-ill student at Virginia Tech to own a firearm? If my kid is goes into the neighbor's yard to retrieve an errant frisbee, does the neighbor have the Right to start shooting?
I respect the wishes of those who wish to own firearms to hunt, but turning our country into Yemen or Somalia isn't going to help a damned thing--regardless of what the Constitution says. |
Savannah
Member
Username: Savannah
Post Number: 119
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 2:26 pm: | |
If someone is texting while driving, and causes an accident resulting in someone's death, can the manufacturer of the phone and car, as well as the wireless service be sued? Special rights? |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 3773
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 2:40 pm: | |
"Maybe the Michigan Constitution defines "the Right to defend your family and property", but you're writing in generalities. "
Again, you seem to be having trouble grasping the idea that not all rights are constitutional rights. The Michigan legislature is empowered to grant legal rights to its citizens and it can do so through ordinary legislation, which is has.
For example:
M.C.L 780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
As far as you accusing me of "writing in generalities", I think you'll find that most statutes are written in generalities. We leave the issue of fact as to whether a specific situation constitutes self-defense for juries to determine.
"I'm for gun rights as well. But the incessant push for "more guns everywhere" as some sort of solution isn't conducive to civilized society."
I agree.
"Should people be allowed to carry firearms into alcohol-serving establishments?"
I don't think so, and neither does the Michigan legislature. Again, this is a determination best left to the democratic process. Most place don't allow this.
"If my kid is goes into the neighbor's yard to retrieve an errant frisbee, does the neighbor have the Right to start shooting?"
No. In Michigan, you don't have right to use deadly force in defense of property. Not sure about D.C., but this is the law in most places. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4519
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 2:58 pm: | |
quote:Again, you seem to be having trouble grasping the idea that not all rights are constitutional rights.
Then where are rights derived? How are they guaranteed? Nothing in the statutes you quoted says anything about "rights" to discharge a firearm. The reason is simple--codified statutes are too easily amended and replaced to guarantee "rights".
As far as generalities are concerned, I wasn't referring to the wording of the statutes. You're writing as if Michigan gun laws apply universally; they don't. It's fallacy to base a general argument in favor of gun rights on the laws of one particular state, because those laws may or may not be applicable in other states.
The "Rights" part of gun-ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution. I'd like to see more emphasis on the "Responsibility" side of the equation, rather than a continued wasting of breath on Rights that are already guaranteed.
As I wrote previously, though, gun advocates always abandon their own once a person decides to push the boundaries of those Rights and use deadly force in an unlawful manner. EVERYONE is a responsible gun owner until they kill. Where's the push by the NRA and other groups to implement codified training and education requirements? |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 3774
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:28 pm: | |
"Then where are rights derived? How are they guaranteed? Nothing in the statutes you quoted says anything about "rights" to discharge a firearm. The reason is simple--codified statutes are too easily amended and replaced to guarantee "rights". "
I'm not sure where your confusion lies here.
We've already agreed that the right of a citizen to own a gun is guaranteed by the federal constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions.
The right of a gun owner in Michigan to use deadly force in self defense derives from the democratically elected legislature being empowered by the Michigan constitution to enact such a law.
You seem to be dwelling on this idea of rights having to be "guaranteed" in order to be rights. This is not so. It's true that the statute I posted above was passed by the legislature and can be repealed by the legislature. But the statute is in effect nonetheless and carries legal force. It provides a legal right to citizens of Michigan to use deadly force in self defense.
Put these two together, and you have a constitutional right to own a firearm and a legal right to use it in self defense.
"As far as generalities are concerned, I wasn't referring to the wording of the statutes. You're writing as if Michigan gun laws apply universally; they don't.:"
No, I wasn't. The right to use deadly force in self defense has been recognized in every state in the union. I simply used Michigan as an example. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4521
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:42 pm: | |
quote:The right of a gun owner in Michigan to use deadly force in self defense derives from the democratically elected legislature being empowered by the Michigan constitution to enact such a law.
So, because the State of Michigan has the right to enact laws, per the Constitution, that somehow guarantees other sorts of rights? Since when do transitive properties apply to the legislative process? Where in Michigan statutes is a Right to use deadly force explictly given?
quote:You seem to be dwelling on this idea of rights having to be "guaranteed" in order to be rights.
Yes, that would seem to be the definition of a "right", is it not?
I think you mean to say it is "permissible" to use deadly force under certain circumstances.
But, you know, we can't have gun advocates worrying too much about technicalities like legal grounds under which they can discharge their weapons, can we? Gun owners are already presumed responsible until proven otherwise, right? And if you're "responsible", you don't need to know anything else, right?
I hope this exchange has been illustrative of the confusion and misunderstanding that gun advocates have of the laws that govern the use of their coveted weaponry. If we can't even reach a mutual understanding on what a Right is, then it's no wonder we have idiots shooting up the place. |
Iseries840
Member
Username: Iseries840
Post Number: 1016
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:05 pm: | |
Why are you people so obsessed with our guns? |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 776
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:41 pm: | |
"Why are you people so obsessed with our guns?"
Because I do not trust you to use them responsibly.
(you asked) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4529
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:53 pm: | |
^^^thank you! |
Iseries840
Member
Username: Iseries840
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:23 pm: | |
What should I be doing (to be more responsible)? |
Savannah
Member
Username: Savannah
Post Number: 120
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:26 pm: | |
Those damn Libertarians and their rape , pillaging and plundering.All those NRA members are just trying to keep those guns so they can knock over liquor stores.Excuse me, Party Stores. |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 777
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 6:06 pm: | |
"What should I be doing (to be more responsible)?"
Sell your guns and stop buying into the "gun culture" in this country - but we both know you won't do it, don't we? |
Ragtoplover59
Member
Username: Ragtoplover59
Post Number: 590
Registered: 09-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 6:49 pm: | |
Zrx_doug said
quote:My point? I've often been pretty damned cheesed off at the world as I sit in this chair over the past twenty-odd years, yet here hang seven rounds of potential mayhem within easy reach, and it never even occurred to me to go on a spree with it.
Apparently, there's something wrong with me, I'm way overdue for my homicidal maniac conversion..
Funny thing is, of the thousands (no, really THOUSANDS) of fellow gun-folk I deal with online, not a one of them has snapped yet, either.
Weird, huh?
How Ironic, me too? Just this morning on the Interstate I had a Blazer come over into my lane and bump my car, just as we were pulling to the shoulder, He took off like a bat out of hell! I took off after him and paced beside him at 100mph while I got his tag number and snapped a pic of the truck with my camera, only to back off and call the police to report it!
And to think, right there beside me was enough Handgun to take that blazer down!
That option didn't even cross my mind until now? Where was my mind at? My opportunity to go ballistic and I didn't think to react that way?
Apparently, there's something wrong with me too 
I wonder if we can get a group rate if we both go get checked out together |
Iseries840
Member
Username: Iseries840
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 7:08 pm: | |
What on earth is the "gun culture" and WHY should I sell my guns? What is wrong with going to the shooting range? Why shouldn't I be able to defend myself against an armed invader? |
Detroitej72
Member
Username: Detroitej72
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 7:47 pm: | |
Arguing the merits of gun ownership is paramount to arguing about abortion. The two opposing views will never see the other side.
Just agree to disagree and move on. |
Savannah
Member
Username: Savannah
Post Number: 121
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 7:54 pm: | |
Yeah, If it were that simple. Hell yes! But that is just like the people that think I shouldn't be able to get a drink of liquor or beer lega
ally. They want to impose their will on me and then tell me" it's just a difference of opinion" |
Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl
Post Number: 919
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 8:10 pm: | |
quote:Sell your guns and stop buying into the "gun culture" in this country - but we both know you won't do it, don't we?
exactly - what is the "gun culture?" for me, gun culture is going to the range and shooting skeet, or firing at paper targets, and going turkey hunting.
perhaps by "gun culture" you're really referring to the collective moral abyss of the entertainment industry, which glamorizes and glorifies shooting and killing in movies, music, and video games. i'm more concerned with that, than i am well-legislated gun ownership.
if we did a better job promoting more positive social messages, guns would certainly be far less fear-provoking - although, the entertainment industry doesn't seem inclined to turn down a buck. but hey, they have rights under the first amendment! i don't like it, but i have to live with it. |
Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl
Post Number: 920
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 8:38 pm: | |
dan, where in the constitution does it say anyone can wear a hat? or fly an airplane?
it's been a long time since i studied civics, but i believe it works like this: 1) states have the rights to enact their own laws, and 2) no law can be made that abrogates or violates the u.s. constitution. if a state allows gun ownership, it would be a problem if the u.s. constitution strictly disallowed gun ownership. to help with this point, consider prohibition: it would have been constitutionally illegal for a state to allow the sale and manufacture of liquor while the volstead act was in effect. but when did the constitution ever allow for the sale and manufacture of liquor? even the 21st amendment - which repealed prohibition - did not grant the right to produce or consume alcohol. you don't really expect that the constitution would enumerate every single last right we had, do you? like having quilting bees, or making origami pterodactyls? seriously.
quote:Where in Michigan statutes is a Right to use deadly force explicitly given?
classic, coming to a debate without knowing the facts - and expecting someone else to provide the reference. try google. not only will you find laws regarding the use of deadly force in michigan, but you will find that under granholm, michigan enacted the "castle doctrine," which means that if the use of deadly force is found to be justified, immunity is provided against civil suits. man, i bet that concept really gives some of you a rash!
or hey, dan - if you're too lazy to google it, just scroll up to thejesus' post #3773 in this thread, with the michigan case law cited. if you had taken the time to read it, you'd realize your statement below is pretty inane:
quote:But, you know, we can't have gun advocates worrying too much about technicalities like legal grounds under which they can discharge their weapons, can we? Gun owners are already presumed responsible until proven otherwise, right? And if you're "responsible", you don't need to know anything else, right? |
Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl
Post Number: 921
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 8:56 pm: | |
quote:The vast majority of gun owners are exercising their right to protect their family and home. I've seen many anti-gun types converted. All it took was some creep to start terrorizing their family/kids.
stash, a couple things here. i'm not sure about the "vast majority," when you consider the number of people who own firearms primarily for hunting. i'd like to think i could defend my home with the 12-ga pump in the closet, but in a home invasion, by the time i found the ammo and loaded the gun, i'd probably be screwed. but, maybe you're right. i just know a lot of people have guns for hunting and controlling vermin, and self-defense is secondary or negligible.
also, i was raised around rifles and shotguns, but handguns scared me a bit, for some reason. then a guy from work took me shooting, and i really got into target sports. actually, i discovered i was pretty good at it. i have a cousin who owned a lot of guns and that scared me. after i learned how to shoot, he was a lot less weird to me. |
Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto
Post Number: 3587
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 9:09 pm: | |
"What is wrong with going to the shooting range? Why shouldn't I be able to defend myself against an armed invader?"
Nothing. Why aren't you required to buy an insurance policy for your weapon (since, again, as ZR tells us, it's really the same thing as a car)? Why can't you pay some hefty taxes on that ammo (like those who buy tobacco and alcohol products are required to do?) After all, if ammo was not so unnaturally cheap, wouldn't people be less inclined to waste so much of it in gun battles while driving drunk on 194?
What exactly do you need to defend your home?
(I've owned a shotgun, before, and felt adequately "protected")
What else do you need? Armor piercing bullets? Semi-automatic weapons? Why shouldn't people who sell tools that are designed to maim and kill be held accountable when they sell weapons to lunatics? |
Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan
Post Number: 828
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 9:15 pm: | |
quote: I think that's a determination best left to the democratic process.
The "democratic process" in California just said that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people.
Since when were constitutional rights put up for a majority vote? If that's the case, I'm sure there's a few red states that would like to do away with that pesky "interracial marriage" thing. After all, if 51% of the population thinks that blacks and whites should be prohibited from marrying each other, then we should respect that. Yes or no?
The Constitution has a mechanism for updating it. If you believe that private firearm ownership is anachronistic in a modern society, then seek to change the Constitution though the legal means that have been laid out for doing so. 2/3rd vote in Congress, ratification by 3/4ths of state legislatures. But if we can ignore a part of the Bill of Rights, we can ignore all of it.
Think of all the criminals we could get off the streets if we got rid of that pesky "warrant" requirement in the Fourth Amendment. If cops could just search any home or any car at will, for any reason, then we could get tons of additional guns and drugs off the streets and lock up tons of criminals. Might as well, right? If it means you can live in a safer society, then you should be willing to give up that right. |
Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl
Post Number: 924
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 9:31 pm: | |
quote:What exactly do you need to defend your home?
a pit bull. at least no one will complain about that. |
Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan
Post Number: 830
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 9:36 pm: | |
quote:Because I do not trust you to use them responsibly.
(you asked)
I don't trust you not to get behind the wheel of a car after having a few beers. |
Iseries840
Member
Username: Iseries840
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 9:45 pm: | |
Ala. gunmen kills 9, himself in shooting spree
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sou th_alabama_shootings |
Ahartz
Member
Username: Ahartz
Post Number: 37
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 9:54 pm: | |
Not taking the bait Alan...looks like you got enough fish on the hook now anyhow....
why respond to such turds???? |
Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl
Post Number: 926
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:36 pm: | |
- The search for 11 people believed to have died in a plane crash over Lake Victoria is yet to yield any bodies 36 hours after the air disaster.
stop air travel until we can ensure complete safety.
- Section of Sask. town evacuated after fire rips through clay plant
outlaw manufacturing plants.
- Police Sergeant Doubled as Serial Rapist
get rid of the police...or the policeman's balls? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4530
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 12:28 am: | |
Thecarl, there is a distinct difference between a Right and something that is permissible. The two are not interchangeable.
Rights address basic tenets of humanity: the Right to Vote, the Right to Free Speech, the Right to be treated equal regardless of gender, age, race, religion, or sexual orientation, the Right to Bear Arms. Rights are general concepts by their nature, and are derived and guaranteed by general governing precepts, such as our Constitution.
Permissible activities are codified in law, and state what is and is not legally allowed behavior. Permissible activities are described as explicit actions--requirements for voting, slander and libel in the press, discrimination statutes, and the circumstances under which a person may use Deadly Force.
The failure to understand this very basic difference is why gun advocates are, in fact, IRRESPONSIBLE in the positions they push. I'm personally supportive of one's Right to Bear Arms, but the NRA needs to stop lobbying that seemingly any act connected to this Right should be permissible. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 3775
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:00 am: | |
"So, because the State of Michigan has the right to enact laws, per the Constitution, that somehow guarantees other sorts of rights?"
You're so out in left field now that I don't know how to bring you back. To put it in more basic terms, Dan, if you were to attack me on the street, today, and I used deadly force against you to stop you, I would not go to jail over it. The reason? Because I have a LEGAL RIGHT to use deadly force in self defense per M.C.L 780.972. I really don't know how to explain it any other way than that Dan.
Yes, its true that legal rights can be changed more easily than constitutional rights. But the fact is, both can be changed, and both carry legal force for as long as they are in effect. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4535
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:07 am: | |
So, thejesus, what percentage of shootings of people would you say are in self-defense? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4536
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:11 am: | |
Thejesus, none of the statutes you quoted say anything about Rights. Yes, if your life is threatened, you are permitted to use a firearm in self-defense--you don't have a Right to do so. It really is a moot point, though, because the vast majority of gun owners are never going to have to "defend" their lives or their property from anyone.
What percentage of shootings of people would you say are in self-defense? |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 780
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:48 am: | |
"I don't trust you not to get behind the wheel of a car after having a few beers."
I don't trust anyone's ability to drive after drinking either, which is why I do not do it. If I have even 1 beer, I have someone else drive. If no one is available to be the designated driver, then I drink at home or I don't drink alcohol. |
Johnnny5
Member
Username: Johnnny5
Post Number: 723
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:55 am: | |
Stronger gun control laws would prevent these types of shootings from ever happening. They have registration and strict ownership laws in Germany and this could never happen there.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 90311/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_s chool_attack |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 781
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:57 am: | |
What on earth is the "gun culture"
The perpetuation of the myth that somehow guns are "American" and that if you oppose the rampant spread of guns in this country that you are somehow un-American...
The perpetuation of the "guns are uniquely American and part of our culture" crap that so many gun owners seem to have...
The misguided concept that some gunowners seem to have that guns = manhood...
The continued misbelief that owning a gun will somehow make you safer, when most studies indicate otherwise...
"The search for 11 people believed to have died in a plane crash over Lake Victoria is yet to yield any bodies 36 hours after the air disaster."
Planes aren't designed to kill, guns are.
"Section of Sask. town evacuated after fire rips through clay plant"
The purpose of the plant was not to potentially destroy the town. What purpose does a gun serve other than to kill? |
Iseries840
Member
Username: Iseries840
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:09 am: | |
I don't believe in any of those things so don't worry about me or my guns. |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 784
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:20 am: | |
"I don't believe in any of those things so don't worry about me or my guns."
...and I don't believe you, so I will continue to worry about you and all gunowners. Just like the responsible gun owners in Alabama and Germany who made the news today. |
Iseries840
Member
Username: Iseries840
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:36 am: | |
You are not a very nice person.
:-( |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 787
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:50 am: | |
"You are not a very nice person."
LOL...when did I ever say I was a nice person?! =)
Honestly, I used to be gunowner myself. I'm an Army veteran and a former NRA member. I understand every point you are making, I truly do. I just came to the realization that (for me) owning guns was contributing to the problem, not helping to solve it. But you and I can agree to disagree - THAT is part of American culture too (or at least it should be).
Peace! |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 3777
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 11:24 am: | |
"Thejesus, none of the statutes you quoted say anything about Rights. Yes, if your life is threatened, you are permitted to use a firearm in self-defense--you don't have a Right to do so."
Dan:
Again, you seem to think you are identifying a distinction between rights and non-rights, when in fact you are merely identifying a distinction between LEGAL RIGHTS and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
A right is simply an entitlement to something, and a legal right is simply a right based in law.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com /dictionary/legal+right
Citizens have all sort of legal rights that are not based in the constitution.
For example, if you are a divorced parent, the law provides you with visitation rights.
If you are a party to a contract, the law provides you the legal right to enforce that contract against the other party.
If you are an employer, the law provides you a legal right to discharge your employees at will.
If you are a shareholder of a company, the law provides you certain shareholders' rights, such as the right to dissent from a sale of the company and demand appraisal of your shares.
A right is simply an entitlement to something. Such an entitlement can be based in the constitution or in law. The constitution is the supreme law of our land but it is not our only source of rights, and the rights found therein are subject to modification or repeal just as legal rights are. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4541
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:26 pm: | |
quote:Again, you seem to think you are identifying a distinction between rights and non-rights, when in fact you are merely identifying a distinction between LEGAL RIGHTS and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Legal Rights include concepts like the Right to a Trial by Jury, the Right to Face Your Accuser, the Right Against Self-Incrimination, the Right to a Speedy Trial, the Right to Not Face Double Jeopardy. These are part and parcel of the legal process.
Shooting someone who is threatening your life is an action that is merely permitted. Are you trying to argue that discharging a firearm at another person is an entitlement? And the gun lobby wonders how people could ever argue for gun control....
And for all the Good Christians out there, there is no such thing as a Right to shoot someone. |
Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug
Post Number: 833
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:46 pm: | |
Danindc..there is most certainly a legal right to use a firearm in self defense.
Me, I'm a good atheist..but if you tell me I don't have the right to defend myself, it upsets me just as much as it does the Christians in the room..
Read the post above yours and actually allow it to percolate into your mind for a bit before hammering off a reply.
In short, "think before you shoot," and "don't go off half-cocked."
(little gun humor there, get it?)
|
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4543
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:54 pm: | |
^^^Where have I said that no one should be allowed to defend themselves?
I understand what you're saying, but discharging a firearm at someone is in no way an unalienable Right founded in the governing principles of Democracy. The failure of the gun lobby to acknowledge this is precisely why folks lobby for gun control--you don't know where the damn boundaries are. It's a nuanced position, sure, but so is possession of a loaded firearm.
All we get are pro-gun messages cloaked in broad generalities, like "defend my property" and "protect my family". What exactly does "defend" mean? When was the last time your property came under siege?
Mind you, I'm not calling to ban firearms, or even handguns, no matter how despicable I think they are. Let's just try to add the "responsibility" part to the equation for once. That not one self-admitted gun owner defending their Right to own a firearm has addressed the responsibility of said ownership, troubles me just a bit. |
Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug
Post Number: 835
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 2:10 pm: | |
Actually, the topic of responsibility as a gun owner has been raised over and over in this thread.
The "I'm afraid of things that go bang" crowd has continually tried to lump the maniacs who make headlines in the same group with the millions of responsible gun owners who do not make headlines.
I'm well aware of my responsibilities, and of the consequences of my own actions..that would be the reason that the gun which is hanging over my computer screen has never been fired in anger.
But I'm also aware of the right to defend myself from those who would cause me harm.
And THAT is why that gun is hanging there in the first place. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 3778
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 2:11 pm: | |
"Legal Rights include concepts like the Right to a Trial by Jury, the Right to Face Your Accuser, the Right Against Self-Incrimination, the Right to a Speedy Trial, the Right to Not Face Double Jeopardy."
No, those are all CONSTITUTIONAL rights. Every right you just listed is based in the constitution, as opposed to a statute passed by a legislature.
"These are part and parcel of the legal process."
Don't get confused by the term "legal right". All that term implies is that the source of the right statutory. If the source is the constitution, then we call it a constitutional right.
"Shooting someone who is threatening your life is an action that is merely permitted."
You seem to think there is some great distinction between something that is a right and something that is permissible. A right IS something that is permissible. All things that can be taken away can be said to be permissible. Rights fit into this category as well, whether constitutional or statutory.
Right now you are permitted to keep and bear arms. If Congress and the states decided to repeal the 2nd amendment, you would no longer be permitted to keep and bear arms.
The only difference between statutory rights and constitutional rights in this regard is the process by which they may be enacted or repealed.
We save the constitution for the really important stuff, but that does not mean anything not found in the constitution is irrelevant.
"Are you trying to argue that discharging a firearm at another person is an entitlement? "
If done is self-defense, yes, IT ABSOLUTELY IS. This is not a matter of opinion, Dan. It's a matter of law. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.