Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

In this circumstance he was luring due to his statements and actions prior and during. I suggest you read the article, because what you're trying to argue isn't what happened.

I've read the article. Someone illegally entered his property with the intention of stealing his property. Why are you not defending the homeowner?

- - - Updated - - -

If it doesn't directly interfere with the inherent natural rights of other humans then no we do not.

And this is where I argue that the current state of firearm ownership directly interferes with the inherent natural rights of other humans. Well, actually, I've been doing that for several hundred pages.

[lockedout]

Minnesota state law, in addition to a number of other states.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...kely-get-house

Old link, but the bill was passed last summer.

Edit: I guess federal law has something similar? It makes mention vaguely.

So link the bill that passed.

Federal law states: The federal law prohibiting subjects of protective orders from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition applies only if the protective order was issued after notice to the abuser and a hearing, and only if the order protects an “intimate partner” of the abuser or a child of the abuser or intimate partner.

[Mistame]

This man illegally entered his property. I hear people on this forum brag all the time: "If someone comes onto my property illegally, I will shoot them." Does that also disqualify them from the Castle Doctrine?

You can't shoot someone for walking onto your yard.

Do you support the right of 10-year-old children to purchase handguns?

Purchase? No. Use? Yes. And I'm pretty sure 10 year-olds can't buy firearms in most places.

Do you support the right of someone with sever schizophrenia to purchase handguns?

I think I'd be more worried about the people checking them out of the institution.

And this is where I argue that the current state of firearm ownership directly interferes with the inherent natural rights of other humans. Well, actually, I've been doing that for several hundred pages.

So you're blaming the general ownership of firearms for the deaths of firearm victims? Because that's the only "right" that's been violated and it's only been violated by those that perpetrated the violence.

[lockedout]

I've read the article. Someone illegally entered his property with the intention of stealing his property. Why are you not defending the homeowner?

You need to actually read the article AND comprehend it then. If he wasn't luring him he could have shot him and it would have been justified, due to his statements and actions leading up to and during this incident however it was found he was in fact luring. You can disagree about the luring part but that is why he was convicted.

[TwoNineMarine]

Minnesota state law, in addition to a number of other states.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...kely-get-house

Old link, but the bill was passed last summer.

Edit: I guess federal law has something similar? It makes mention vaguely.

I personally agree with this. And I get the sentiment but generally if a husband or something gets angry to the point of wanting to kill their wife, chances are they will simply beat her to death with their hands or a blunt object anyways. I honestly don't think something like this would prevent any sort of mass shooting though. The people that do that tend to remain hidden until they commit their act. (I do understand that isn't the point of the bill though)

Regardless, why would it matter? A man illegally entered his property to commit robbery. Why are you not defending the homeowners right to protect himself?

Because he did it with the intent to kill the burglerer. If someone breaks into my home and are a threat to my family or myself then I will use lethal force. But it's not something I am actively planning. I am not trying to lure anyone into my home to rob me.

And if anything it is only one example. You are not taking rights from a 10 year old by not allowing them to purchase a firearm. Because they can still legally own one in most states. They simply can't buy one until they are a legal adult as defined by the government.

The mental illness cases like that are so few and far between though trying to use them as part of your platform to severely restrict gun rights of the majority of Americans is weak at best.

I've stated several times in the past that anyone with a history of violence should be watched carefully.

[Ghostpanther]

OK. So there's two instances of rights being taken from Americans without a crime being committed.

Like I said. We all support the removal of rights from other Americans at one point or another, for the "general welfare" of society.

- - - Updated - - -



I understand that. Do you agree? Is leaving your garage door open a lure to burglars? Should you forfeit your right to self defense by doing so?

Do not be silly. Some rights ( such as the right to vote ) are reserved for adults.

The point is it is not unlawful to leave your garage door or even your home door open. It is however unlawful to enter ether without permission of the owner. I am not saying in the case you are referring to, the homeowner used good judgment. In fact he was a dumbass. But even being a dumbass in itself is not unlawful.

But with that said, one could seriously question the homeowner having a fear of his life in that case.

[lockedout]

It doesn't. That's the point. Follow the conversation.

Why even bring up the fact 10 year old's can't buy guns? They can still use them, legally.

[Rukentuts]

I personally agree with this. And I get the sentiment but generally if a husband or something gets angry to the point of wanting to kill their wife, chances are they will simply beat her to death with their hands or a blunt object anyways. I honestly don't think something like this would prevent any sort of mass shooting though. The people that do that tend to remain hidden until they commit their act. (I do understand that isn't the point of the bill though)

It wasn't based on the grounds of mass shootings. It was based on the grounds that victims of domestic violence are 6x more likely to die if there is a gun in the house.

But in the end, all I was trying to prove is that there are occasions where people have broken no laws and yet lose their rights on the interest of societal safety.

[TZucchini]

Because he did it with the intent to kill the burglerer.

Isn't that why people purchase firearms for protection? With the intention of killing someone that illegally trespasses onto their property with the intention of stealing their possession?

How could this homeowner know that all the robber wanted to do was steal his possessions? How could he know that he didn't also want to rape and kill his entire family?

Do not be silly. Some rights ( such as the right to vote ) are reserved for adults.

Well that would signify that the Government is the one granting us these rights. They're saying "you can vote, you can vote....Opps you can't vote yet, you're not old enough."

I thought these rights were universal. Where is it written that rights only apply once you're 18 years old?

[Mistame]

It was based on the grounds that victims of domestic violence are 6x more likely to die if there is a gun in the house.

It doesn't make it any less silly. If a restraining order is issued and the "abuser's" name is on the title to the house, technically, the "abusee" would have to leave.

But in the end, all I was trying to prove is that there are occasions where people have broken no laws and yet lose their rights on the interest of societal safety.

Taking one's rights based on what they could do, if so inclined, is absurd.

[TwoNineMarine]

It wasn't based on the grounds of mass shootings. It was based on the grounds that victims of domestic violence are 6x more likely to die if there is a gun in the house.

But in the end, all I was trying to prove is that there are occasions where people have broken no laws and yet lose their rights on the interest of societal safety.

No I understand. And hopefully that bill will/ is doing some good. I do think that there needs to be a lot of oversight and careful consideration before giving out the restraining orders and such.

I'd hate to have someone file a restraining order with the intent to get someones guns taken from them because the accuser is mad of the accusee.

[TZucchini]

Why even bring up the fact 10 year old's can't buy guns? They can still use them, legally.

If a 10 year old cannot purchase a firearm legally, then their rights are being restricted. Without committing a crime.

- - - Updated - - -

Taking one's rights based on what they could do, if so inclined, is absurd.

And yet it happens all the time. And passes Constitutional muster.

[Mistame]

If a 10 year old cannot purchase a firearm legally, then their rights are being restricted. Without committing a crime.

A 10 year-old does not have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm.

And yet it happens all the time. And passes Constitutional muster.

That doesn't make it any less wrong.

[Ghostpanther]

Well that would signify that the Government is the one granting us these rights. They're saying "you can vote, you can vote....Opps you can't vote yet, you're not old enough."

I thought these rights were universal. Where is it written that rights only apply once you're 18 years old?

The right to defend yourself from bodily harm to the degree that is required to successfully do that is a universal one. Even a 10 year old has that right. But they are limited to access to some items because they are not adults therefore judged not to be responsible enough in the handling of those items by themselves. And of course the government grants us protection of our rights under the Constitution. But they also have restricted those rights of everyone to a point.

But let us say a 10 year old is at home alone and a intruder breaks in and the 10 year has somehow got a hold of a gun and shoots the intruder out of fear for his life. He would be within his rights to act accordingly under those circumstances.

[TZucchini]

A 10 year-old does not have a constitutional right to own a firearm.

That's the point. We place restrictions based on the general welfare of society.

That doesn't make it any less wrong.

Are you saying you disagree with things that are in the Constitution? Me too!

[TwoNineMarine]

Isn't that why people purchase firearms for protection? With the intention of killing someone that illegally trespasses onto their property with the intention of stealing their possession?

How could this homeowner know that all the robber wanted to do was steal his possessions? How could he know that he didn't also want to rape and kill his entire family?




Well that would signify that the Government is the one granting us these rights. They're saying "you can vote, you can vote....Opps you can't vote yet, you're not old enough."

I thought these rights were universal. Where is it written that rights only apply once you're 18 years old?

Yes that is the intent of said weapons. To protect your family and yourself. But no when you intentionally lure someone into your home. Which it sounds like the homeowner did in this case.

And I'm pretty sure most states with Castle Doctrines don't consider the garage to be a part of your 'castle'. Unless your family is out doing something in it of course.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Phaelix and I (and others) agreed the right to arms should be temporarily stripped from those whose state of mind deemed by a professional to be an "imminent threat" to themselves or others, criminal history being notwithstanding.

Such a stupid law would be effective for about five minutes.

All anyone is going to have to do is show up to the doctor and say, "I want to own firearms because it is my right granted under the US Constitution" then the doctor isn't going to have any ground to stand on for disqualifying them without risking a lawsuit.

How effective do you realistically expect something like this to be? Create more laws and bureaucracy that do nothing?

Baited the guy? He didn't force the guy onto his property illegally. He didn't force him to steal his private possessions.

This man illegally entered his property. I hear people on this forum brag all the time: "If someone comes onto my property illegally, I will shoot them." Does that also disqualify them from the Castle Doctrine?

Do you know what baited means? He bragged to his hairdresser (I believe) about his exact plan to leave the garage door open an blow the person away when the alarm was given.

No, it doesn't disqualify them. Protecting yourself from harm within the confines of a state's laws and intentionally baiting someone and then executing them are two different things.

[Mistame]

That's the point. We place restrictions based on the general welfare of society.

Now you're comparing apples to airplanes.

Are you saying you disagree with things that are in the Constitution? Me too!

Actually, I'm saying that stripping a person's rights based on something they could do is absurd. Anyone could murder someone else.

[Rukentuts]

Anyone could murder someone else.

Except the trends are a thing.

[TZucchini]

Now you're comparing apples to airplanes.

I'm not comparing anything. I'm giving examples of cases where we restrict rights based on the general welfare of society.

Actually, I'm saying that stripping a person's rights based on something they could do is absurd. Anyone could murder someone else.

The Constitution allows for this action to occur. Are you saying you disagree with the Constitution?