TheGoodBits Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Oh, I think he was justified in using force. That's one reason why I like concealed carry laws. The way I think of it is that, when somebody steps out of an alley and says "gimme your money", the citizen has the right to say "no". And a gun makes his "no" a lot more likely to stick. I don't even have a problem with geezer shooting first. Do I think he saved the lives of everybody there? No. Do I think he prevented an armed robbery? That's obvious. Do I think "preventing an armed robbery" is a good enough reason to fire? Yes. (I don't feel nearly as good about him chasing the guys, and shooting at their backs as they ran. He's not the defender, any more.) . I didn't say anything about whether or not it was justified. His use of force was absolutely justified. But it also unnecessarily put the lives of everyone else there in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Their lives were already in danger from the armed felons....submit or die is no way to live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Their lives were already in danger from the armed felons....submit or die is no way to live Their lives were in danger of being struck by lightening, too. But usually, guns are more dangerous when they're being fired, than when they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Their lives were already in danger from the armed felons....submit or die is no way to live That's a decision the gentleman can make for himself. He doesn't have a right to make it for everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 That's a decision the gentleman can make for himself. He doesn't have a right to make it for everyone else. Maybe I'm misreading you, here. But are you suggesting that joe Citizen, when he sees an armed robbery in progress, is required to ask the person being robbed if he would like assistance, before he's allowed to stop the robbery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 That's a decision the gentleman can make for himself. He doesn't have a right to make it for everyone else. so these peaceful armed robbers are going to shoot someone besides him now?...why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Maybe I'm misreading you, here. But are you suggesting that joe Citizen, when he sees an armed robbery in progress, is required to ask the person being robbed if he would like assistance, before he's allowed to stop the robbery? I'm suggesting that opening fire in a situation where there are numerous bystanders, thereby drastically increasing the chance they get shot, isn't the smartest thing to do. so these peaceful armed robbers are going to shoot someone besides him now?...why I'd argue that the VAST majority of armed robberies end with no injuries, whereas exchanging gunfire is a good way to get someone hurt/killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I'd argue we need more armed robberies to end with injuries, but I won't insist someone else do so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I'd argue we need more armed robberies to end with injuries, but I won't insist someone else do so Kinda boils down to the armed society vs disarmed society concept. Which is better, having (almost) nobody with guns or everyone with guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 disarm the criminals and more folk will disarm....it don't work the other way 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 disarm the criminals and more folk will disarm....it don't work the other way Actually quite the opposite. If you have minimal restrictions on legally owning firearms, it's impossible to prevent guns from falling into the hands of those who would use them to commit crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 A rolling stone gathers no moss. Since we're all exchanging slogans, here, and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 a penny saved is a penny earned...or you can just rob dollars instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) Ah, a second vote for the notion that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property" means "you can take his car keys, but not his gun". As far as I can tell, nobody said that the due process clause meant "you can take his car keys but not his gun" except you. I certainly didn't say that. All I said is that the state cannot take your rights or property without due process, and one of those rights is the right to bear arms. We could quibble about what "due process" involves or what your "rights" are, but I think we'll agree that your rights include those laid out in the bill of rights, and due process involves a fair and speedy trial in which you are charged with a crime, hear the evidence against you, and have the opportunity to defend yourself. I don't think your analogy between taking a drunk driver's car keys and taking a bad guy's gun is exact, mainly because a constitutional right to travel is implied at best, whereas a constitutional right to bear arms is stated quite explicitly, nonetheless it is a close enough analogy for my purposes here. Regarding your analogy, I would say something like this: 1. We have enacted laws against drunk driving for the safety of the public. If you break those laws, we will charge you with drunk driving, take your car, arrest you, and put you on trial. If you are convicted, then you can lose your license, your car, etc. If you are acquitted, then we have to give you your car and freedom back. 2. We have enacted laws against armed robbery for the safety of the public. If you break those laws, we will charge you with the crime, take your gun, arrest you, and put you on trial. If you are convicted, then you can lose your right to to bear arms, your gun, your freedom, etc. If you are acquitted, then we have to give you your gun and freedom back. The way I understand it, the state must charge you with a crime and convict you in order for you to be deprived of your rights and property. Of course you may be temporarily deprived of your rights and property while you await trial, but only if you are charged with a crime first. It seems that gun control advocates would like to take people's guns without charging them with any crime (unless you have to be charged with a crime to get on the "no fly" list, which is not my understanding). That seems to be the force of the objection from gun rights advocates, and I don't think it is altogether unreasonable. Sticking with your analogy, this would be a bit like the police taking your keys and drivers license because they think you might be a drunk driver in the future. Anyway this has turned into a long post, and I'm not overly committed to either side of this debate, but I wanted to reply to the nonsense you twice attributed to me. I didn't say anything like you seem to think I said. I'd also like to add that I've generally found you to be one of the better posters in this thread. This debate is difficult because we have to weigh individual rights against the general welfare, and you usually seem to appreciate that difficulty. So hopefully you won't take this as a total disagreement, my intention is more to set the record straight. Edited June 20, 2016 by s0crates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 As far as I can tell, nobody said that the due process clause meant "you can take his car keys but not his gun" except you. I liken it to a police officer taking away your keys after pulling you over. The major difference between guns and your example is that driving is not a constitutionally guaranteed right which the constitution says can only be taken away by due process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) Oh I see. I think I gave DCF156 a more charitable reading than you, but I understand why you attributed the aforementioned nonsense to him. His response to Burgold was a bit muddled. So I guess that's one person who said something like that, but who was "the second vote"? Edited June 20, 2016 by s0crates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DallasCowboyFan156 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 What I said may have been a bit muddled, but I'll walk it back and say that I don't think a police officer should be able to take your car keys unless you are being arrested. My intention was to point out that guns are a constitutional right so we can't take that right away from someone unless there is due process involved, even if we suspect them of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 What I said may have been a bit muddled, but I'll walk it back and say that I don't think a police officer should be able to take your car keys unless you are being arrested. My intention was to point out that guns are a constitutional right so we can't take that right away from someone unless there is due process involved, even if we suspect them of something. You seem to be under a misapprehension that our rights are absolute. The right to vote is not absolute: You have to be at least 18. Additionally, some states are now mandating that you can only vote if you meet certain conditions and pay certain fees (For example, Voter ID laws) The right to free speech is not absolute: You are not allowed to slander, libel, incite violence. Further, you can not even protest in some places without a permit. Candidates like Donald Trump are withing their rights to deny the freedom of the press their rights to speak. The right to assemble is not absolute: You can not meet wherever you want. You can not go wherever you want. Whether that's due to private property or government concerns (for example, military bases) Further in many places, you need to get a permit in order to assemble. The right to own a gun is not absolute and yet people are treating it that way and pretend it should be. We need to treat the right to bear arms as we do every other right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 The right to own a gun is not absolute and yet people are treating it that way and pretend it should be. We need to treat the right to bear arms as we do every other right. I don't think there are many (in here at least) that are saying otherwise. If someone were trying to say the 2nd is absolute, they would be saying a person should be able to have machine guns, heat seeking missiles, and nuclear weapons. After all, the 2nd says "bear arms" not "bear guns". The issue that brings discussion is WHERE to draw the line. That same issue comes up with all rights. How much hate speech do we allow? Do we let the Klan protest on the National Mall? All rights have lines and we as a society have to decide where that line is. I personally believe in siding with the person or group when possible. I think rights should be read with the broadest reasonable interpretation. I would be highly upset if the Klan weren't allowed to assemble on the national mall or if it became illegal for someone to call me cracker. Even though I don't like it, I believe in the right to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I don't think there are many (in here at least) that are saying otherwise. You may be right, but that's the way I interpret what Dallas has been saying. He keeps saying there is a difference between a "right" and a "privilege" which in this case means he has no problem with a cop taking your keys if he suspects your drunk, but has a huge problem with a background check rejection of a person who is a suspected terrorist or a person who has been making repeated escalating acts of violence against a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 The right to free speech is not absolute: You are not allowed to slander, libel, incite violence. Further, you can not even protest in some places without a permit. Candidates like Donald Trump are withing their rights to deny the freedom of the press their rights to speak. The right to assemble is not absolute: You can not meet wherever you want. You can not go wherever you want. Whether that's due to private property or government concerns (for example, military bases) Further in many places, you need to get a permit in order to assemble. someone needs to tell the liberal protestors and/or millennials this good luck to that person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Actually quite the opposite. If you have minimal restrictions on legally owning firearms, it's impossible to prevent guns from falling into the hands of those who would use them to commit crimes. Hah, good luck with that one. I'm sure it'll go over well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) Watch it on youtube, doesn't embed I guess, but it's pretty shocking. They hire a 13 year old kid to go around town and try to buy beer, cigs, lottery ticket etc and the clerks laugh at him. He goes to a gun show and buys a gun within minutes. Edited June 20, 2016 by KAOSkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) https://twitter.com/DSenFloor/status/745018398996897792 The Senate did not invoke cloture on Murphy-Booker-Schumer-Blumenthal amendment (expand background checks), 44-56.6:20 PM https://twitter.com/AP/status/745018838929055744 BREAKING: Senate blocks Democratic measure to close gun show loophole and expand background checks. 6:21 PM https://twitter.com/kristinapet/status/745018540332355584 Murphy-Schumer-Booker background checks bill is defeated in a 44-56 vote. Up next: the Cornyn terror watch list measure.6:20 PM Edited June 20, 2016 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Well I figured that was the best chance we've had in awhile at passing a halfway meaningful piece of gun legislation. The terror watchlist has a better chance of passing but has no teeth whatsoever if said terrorist can easily acquire a gun via private party sale where no background checks are needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts