Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

Wait. So natural rights cannot be taken away by governments. Except for the the governments that do have the legal authority to take them away?

This is making less and less sense. Thus, underlying the inherent problem with an idea like "natural rights".

i think we can end this, i´m still waiting for an explaination about where´s the difference between a government granting a right and a government protecting a right when both have the legal power to take them away as they wish

[Odekahn]

That's an opinion.



Show me a right you believe to be universal, and I'll show you a government with the authority to take that right away.



Yes. I agree that there will never be evidence that "natural rights" are factually true. It's an idea, that some people believe in. But just believing in something doesn't make it true.

- - - Updated - - -



What? I thought natural rights were inalienable. You can't just give them up. They always exist. Right? Right?

You can give up a natural right, but it cannot be taken away from outside forces. You should study what inalienable means.

[Tinykong]

Wait. So natural rights cannot be taken away by governments. Except for the the governments that do have the legal authority to take them away?

This is making less and less sense. Thus, underlying the inherent problem with an idea like "natural rights".

Who said anything about legal authority?

You seem to have trouble putting together a post that doesn't include some of your own brand of bullshit intended to make it look like you're "successful." Do you get bruises from patting yourself on the back this much?

- - - Updated - - -

You should study what inalienable means.

He knows what it means. He just doesn't "agree" with the definition.

[Mayhem]

You can give up a natural right, but it cannot be taken away from outside forces. You should study what inalienable means.

uhm, ok, maybe this is an issue with the language barrier, but is capital punishment not taking away a natural right?

[Ghostpanther]

no, i´m not implying that at all, you´re not allowed to kill them though without having a very good reason to do so, so if your life is at stake you´re naturally doing everything you can to defend yourself, but if your life isn´t at risk you can´t just take another life and claim self defense without having to fear jail time

So it is a "inalienable" right even in Germany to defend yourself to the degree which is necessary to preserve it. The major difference maybe in the US is ( at least in most States ) the government understands the one defending themselves can not read the attacker's mind to the extent of harm meant to them.

- - - Updated - - -

i think we can end this, i´m still waiting for an explaination about where´s the difference between a government granting a right and a government protecting a right when both have the legal power to take them away as they wish

The difference is one is already present and is being protected. And the government can not take away a right protected under the US Constitution as they wish. It involves a lot of legal procedures which must follow how the US Constitution can be amended. It was designed that way on purpose. Possible, of course. But not as some wish, but most States must approve such a amendment, thus the reason for the name "The United States of America". The interpretation of the Constitution has been if anything, expanded to the protection of inalienable rights extended to even more citizens.

[Mayhem]

So it is a "inalienable" right even in Germany to defend yourself to the degree which is necessary to preserve it. The major difference maybe in the US is ( at least in most States ) the government understands the one defending themselves can not read the attacker's mind to the extent of harm meant to them.

that´s pretty crucial though, because then you have stand your ground laws and such that expand the definition of self defense beyond ridiculousness and so ones inalienable right does trump another ones inalienable right

- - - Updated - - -

The difference is one is already present and is being protected. And the government can not take away a right protected under the US Constitution as they wish. It involves a lot of legal procedures which must follow how the US Constitution can be amended. It was designed that way on purpose. Possible, of course. But not as some wish, but most States must approve such a amendment, thus the reason for the name "The United States of America". The interpretation of the Constitution has been if anything, expanded to the protection of inalienable rights extended to even more citizens.

yes they can... so what´s an inalienable right worth when it´s not inalienable? kind of makes it not that inalienable if you ask me

[Ghostpanther]

that´s pretty crucial though, because then you have stand your ground laws and such that expand the definition of self defense beyond ridiculousness and so ones inalienable right does trump another ones inalienable right

- - - Updated - - -



yes they can... so what´s an inalienable right worth when it´s not inalienable? kind of makes it not that inalienable if you ask me

Stand your ground means you do not have the obligation to flee if someone is attacking you. The one attacking does lose some rights by acting in a criminal way. We have free speech, but we are not allowed to yell fire!! in a crowded theater if there is no fire. And yes, there are some restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. But nothing which would handicap a citizen from being able to defend themselves successfully. And that is the major purpose of the 2nd IMO.

No, they cannot just up and disband a right in the Constitution even if the President or Congress decides they want to. It takes the majority of the States to approve a amendment. What part are you having issues with understanding? The Bill of rights is a fundamental part of our Constitution and the 2nd is part of it to the extent each citizen has the right to life and to defend themselves. Criminals lose some rights by default of them being criminals. The Supreme Court has ruled capital punishment is not a violation of the Constitution.

[Rukentuts]

The Supreme Court has ruled capital punishment is not a violation of the Constitution.

I can't wait to see the rulings post-botching due to drug switching. Anyone with an ounce of brain activity can see that someone gasping and writhing for an hour is cruel and unusual.

[Mayhem]

Stand your ground means you do not have the obligation to flee if someone is attacking you. The one attacking does lose some rights by acting in a criminal way. We have free speech, but we are not allowed to yell fire!! in a crowded theater if there is no fire. And yes, there are some restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. But nothing which would handicap a citizen from being able to defend themselves successfully. And that is the major purpose of the 2nd IMO.

stand your ground also means you can shoot a supposed perpetrator if he´s within your home if you feel your life is at risk, no? i do have a hard time with this law, because i just don´t get how it works on a legal basis, i mean how does someone prove that the one who entered meant them harm?

No, they cannot just up and disband a right in the Constitution even if the President or Congress decides they want to. It takes the majority of the States to approve a amendment. What part are you having issues with understanding? The Bill of rights is a fundamental part of our Constitution and the 2nd is part of it to the extent each citizen has the right to life and to defend themselves. Criminals lose some rights by default of them being criminals. The Supreme Court has ruled capital punishment is not a violation of the Constitution.

they don´t have to alter or disband a right if they can take it away from people individually... it´s written in the bill of rights, who cares, supposed terrorist - that was it for your rights, you killed someone, your rights are gone, you made one mistake there goes another right

see what i mean? you have the rights only if you never ever mess up, they are privileges, given to the ones that obey the ruling power, certainly not inalienable

[PhaelixWW]

stand your ground also means you can shoot a supposed perpetrator if he´s within your home if you feel your life is at risk, no?

No, that's a gross oversimplification of the law. From the Florida SYG law, for example:

Florida 776.012(2):

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

So the "feeling" has to be reasonable, and encompass imminent death or great bodily harm. The reasonableness of the fear to be determined by the courts after the fact, of course.

It is by no means a carte blanche for justifiable homicide.

[Ghostpanther]

No, that's a gross oversimplification of the law. From the Florida SYG law, for example:

Florida 776.012(2):

So the "feeling" has to be reasonable, and encompass imminent death or great bodily harm. The reasonableness of the fear to be determined by the courts after the fact, of course.

It is by no means a carte blanche for justifiable homicide.

This happened here in Ohio. My neighbor was awaken by a noise of someone breaking a window in his basement. He got up, grabbed his rifle and as he was going down the steps, he encountered a man coming up it. He shot once and the man ran down the steps and back out the window. He was arrested later at a local hospital for a gun shot wound.

No charges were brought against the home owner even though the intruder was not armed or even threaten him. In Ohio, during a home invasion, the owner has the right to assume their life is in danger and can use deadly force. Now if he had shot him again as he lay at the bottom of the steps or as he was climbing out the window, then it would be different and the home owner could be charged.

In Ohio the Castle Law was also extended to the owner's vehicle.

[Roxinius]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...128-story.html

yep dat gun control doe

[Mayhem]

No, that's a gross oversimplification of the law. From the Florida SYG law, for example:

Florida 776.012(2):

So the "feeling" has to be reasonable, and encompass imminent death or great bodily harm. The reasonableness of the fear to be determined by the courts after the fact, of course.

It is by no means a carte blanche for justifiable homicide.

you have to prove that you had reasonable fear for your life? am i the only one that thinks this sounds crazy?

"why did you shoot mr. deadguy?"

"i feared for my life"

"prove it"

"what? uuhm, i really really feared for my life"

"alright, next case"

[lockedout]

you have to prove that you had reasonable fear for your life? am i the only one that thinks this sounds crazy?

When someone crawls in your window at night, your life is in danger.

[Mayhem]

When someone crawls in your window at night, your life is in danger.

no, when someone crawls in my window at night, my stuff is probably going to be gone when i wake up, do you assume every intruder is out for someones life, rather than for their things

edit:

so that´s already enough, someone entering your home is inducing reasonable fear for your life? how is that not carte blanche?

[lockedout]

no, when someone crawls in my window at night, my stuff is probably going to be gone when i wake up, do you assume every intruder is out for someones life, rather than for their things

edit:

so that´s already enough, someone entering your home is inducing reasonable fear for your life? how is that not carte blanche?

I don't even know what to say to you. We just have different views. If someone decides to crawl into my window or break into my house at night any reasonable person would be in fear for their life.

[cuafpr]

I can't wait to see the rulings post-botching due to drug switching. Anyone with an ounce of brain activity can see that someone gasping and writhing for an hour is cruel and unusual.

depends on what that person did to be honest, at lest for me... if they raped a kid or tortured someone to death it doesn't bother me at all to see them suffer in pain via a slow death.

[PhaelixWW]

you have to prove that you had reasonable fear for your life? am i the only one that thinks this sounds crazy?

Who said you had to prove that you had reasonable fear for your life? That's not how it works. The court asks a jury to decide whether a reasonable person would fear for their life given the facts of the case.

So it's not about proving that the specific person feared for their life, but about showing that a reasonable person would fear for their life in that scenario.

[Ghostpanther]

no, when someone crawls in my window at night, my stuff is probably going to be gone when i wake up, do you assume every intruder is out for someones life, rather than for their things

edit:

so that´s already enough, someone entering your home is inducing reasonable fear for your life? how is that not carte blanche?

The courts would look at the circumstances involved. Remember this, in the US a citizen is presumed not guilty of a crime unless the prosecutor feels there is good grounds to take them to court. But it is made very simple when a state has a Castle Law. The whole reason behind the law is the concept of why a home owner needs to prove he did not mean harm to a intruder who unlawfully enters their home was ridiculous. Here in Ohio, you do not enter someone's home uninvited without risks.

[Svifnymr]

no, when someone crawls in my window at night, my stuff is probably going to be gone when i wake up, do you assume every intruder is out for someones life, rather than for their things

edit:

so that´s already enough, someone entering your home is inducing reasonable fear for your life? how is that not carte blanche?

You do not have to retreat from the person. In a simplistic way: If you come on a person who is stealing your stuff and he runs off or surrenders, he is not a threat, he is out for your things. If he instead comes at you, you can assume he is a threat and your use of force is justified.

If you want to debate about whether deadly force is warranted protect yourself from a severe beating, or if you should instead hide somewhere while waiting for the guy to leave without confronting him, that's a different argument.

- - - Updated - - -

The courts would look at the circumstances involved. Remember this, in the US a citizen is presumed not guilty of a crime unless the prosecutor feels there is good grounds to take them to court. But it is made very simple when a state has a Castle Law. The whole reason behind the law is the concept of why a home owner needs to prove he did not mean harm to a intruder who unlawfully enters their home was ridiculous. Here in Ohio, you do not enter someone's home uninvited without risks.

In Florida at least, the initial momentum for the Stand Your Ground law was the protection vs civil lawsuits. The old "you shot a burglary and now he's suing you" story. Whether that happened often enough to need a law to prevent it, I don't know, but there IS a cost to defending lawsuits, no matter how junk.