-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
threlayer
Problem is states' rights to make their own gun laws and the lobbying that make them hesitant to make responsible laws. And the lobbying that also makes the Fed hesitant too. This is beyond the Constitution and its amendments which does not limit 'arms' ownership and doesn't even define 'militias'. But it only implies ,at best, that individual owners should not have more powerful weapons than official militias and the military, and I suppose police which must be implied someplace in there.
There is no legal standing for a States Rights issue to prohibit a firearm or certain type of firearm. The Tenth Amendment makes the Second an exclusive province of the People. Not any State or even the Federal Government.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Founding Fathers intended for the martial arms to remain in the hands of the Citizenry, with full (experiential) knowledge of the dangers of keeping around a standing professional army.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
threlayer
This is what I have heard, not being a lawyer but only reading a law book on torts....
Actually you have that right when you are chased down and cannot escape. The courts would rather you try to avoid/escape the situation--the reasonable man argument. If you are in, eg, an attempted mugging and you slug, cut, shoot the perpetrator without attempting to escape, you ae in legal jeopardy. To an extent, if you are confronted in your residence (permanent or temporary) you have a right to disarm/disable the perp. That is, you did until some naive courts decided that you could be sued in a civil court for damages to the perp.
Hoping some lawyer here will clarify this....
I am not a Lawyer but, I do feel lucky I live in a "Castle Doctrine" State, and cannot be sued by a criminal who is injured by myself or on my property while performing criminal acts. Unlike NY State with a few rather infamous cases of the latter.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lady
are gun ppl proposing we be allwed ak-47 and m-16???
That is not a rhetorical question. Im serious. Cuz I was not aware of it.
Yes.
Yes, I do. My "reasonable restrictions" would be safety education Starting from the first grade on (age appropriate); and such things as are intended to damage without necessity of direction. i.e. explosives, grenades, nuclear weapons............... ummmmmmmm with the exception of nukes; these can be purchased with a permit and the $200 tax stamp. Yes Virginia you too can buy a hand grenade.
My point is this. The founding fathers were against a standing professional Army. Having experienced the British Army before Concord and Lexington; the authors of the Constitution desired that the Arms should be in the hands of the People. This is one of the Checks and Balances written into the Constitution to directly prevent tyranny.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flickad
Aren't most murders committed impulsively, in the heat of some strong emotion?
Unlikely, and in such instances mental illness is a contributing factor.
This is the defense for the "crime of passion" such as a spouse catches his/her cheating and in bed with the lover, then kills them both. In some States this is considered justifiable.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArmySGT.
My point is this. The founding fathers were against a standing professional Army. Having experienced the British Army before Concord and Lexington; the authors of the Constitution desired that the Arms should be in the hands of the People. This is one of the Checks and Balances written into the Constitution to directly prevent tyranny.
But don't you guys have, like, a huge standing army? /:O
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hockeybobby
But don't you guys have, like, a huge standing army? /:O
Yes, we do. Something our Founders warned us against. It was created in response to the problems associated with calling up the State militia for the Spanish American War, and WW 1.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
flickad - the hardest things for americans to do is think about what they look like from the outside because:
1) they generally don't care; and
2) shoot first, ask questions later
(think about the pussies, dicks and assholes scene from Team America)
i grew up in a country where not even the cops were armed. i live in a country now where there has been one massacre in my lifetime. the country i grew up in had one notorious gun massacre in its history - ONE family of 5 died. a drive-by shooting is still news, and not par for the course.
i'm not going to try and convert people who cling to a part of their constitution as an excuse to do something that just doesn't work.
the thinking perpetuates itself and the fear cycle continues. no answer though. just natural selection. hand out guns at birth and go from there.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nautilus
flickad - the hardest things for americans to do is think about what they look like from the outside because:
1) they generally don't care; and
2) shoot first, ask questions later
(think about the pussies, dicks and assholes scene from Team America)
No need to look further than an overly simplistic stereotype when said stereotype fits your agenda. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nautilus
i grew up in a country where not even the cops were armed.
Stop! ... Stop!! ... Stop, or I'll yell stop again! :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nautilus
the thinking perpetuates itself and the fear cycle continues. no answer though. just natural selection. hand out guns at birth and go from there.
Yes, very astute. The 'fear cycle' that continues on and on ...
Narcissus
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Narcissus
No need to look further than an overly simplistic stereotype when said stereotype fits your agenda. ;)
it's simplistic america that 'clings to their guns'
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
threlayer
This is what I have heard, not being a lawyer but only reading a law book on torts....
Actually you have that right when you are chased down and cannot escape. The courts would rather you try to avoid/escape the situation--the reasonable man argument. If you are in, eg, an attempted mugging and you slug, cut, shoot the perpetrator without attempting to escape, you ae in legal jeopardy. To an extent, if you are confronted in your residence (permanent or temporary) you have a right to disarm/disable the perp. That is, you did until some naive courts decided that you could be sued in a civil court for damages to the perp.
Hoping some lawyer here will clarify this....
Just finished my LLB today (yay!!) but my knowledge of US law is very limited. I can tell you that here the defence of self-defence varies between states and that many provisions do include a reasonable proportionality requirement.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
^^^ well, in the state of New York there have been several well publicized cases where criminals attempted to rob / threaten homeowners ... resulting in the criminals being injured by the homeowners and thus apprehended ... resulting in lawsuits against the homeowners by the criminals ... resulting in juries awarding greater amounts in 'damages' to the criminal than if the homeowner had simply let the criminal rob them in the first place !
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ well, in the state of New York there have been several well publicized cases where criminals attempted to rob / threaten homeowners ... resulting in the criminals being injured by the homeowners and thus apprehended ... resulting in lawsuits against the homeowners by the criminals ... resulting in juries awarding greater amounts in 'damages' to the criminal than if the homeowner had simply let the criminal rob them in the first place !
I would say that sounds counter-intuitive, but I guess it depends on how much damage was done in the name of defence of property. Vigilante justice and self-defence aren't the same thing.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
^^Agreed. There was a guy who saw his neighbor's house being robbed and he went outside and killed the robbers even after the 911 operator told him not to. He was subsequently cleared. I don't know how that seems fair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...ng_controversy
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
^
Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect property? Nice to know they have their priorities straight.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Texas is pretty ass backwards.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flickad
Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect property? Nice to know they have their priorities straight.
That is colloquilly known as the "shoot your neighbor" law.
But, then, in Texas is there anything that is not colloquil?
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArmySGT.
There is no legal standing for a States Rights issue to prohibit a firearm or certain type of firearm. The Tenth Amendment makes the Second an exclusive province of the People. Not any State or even the Federal Government.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Founding Fathers intended for the martial arms to remain in the hands of the Citizenry, with full (experiential) knowledge of the dangers of keeping around a standing professional army.
You bring up a good point about the Twelfth. We should remember, though, that when the Founding Fathers' peers wanted an army for the War of Independence, they only found it among the citizenry, as they had no significant standing army in the times when they really needed one. Good thing that everyone had arms. Further, there was no supermarket/butcher shop infrastructure, so hunting was very, very common, even among the gentry. With that background, we do not know what they actually intended in times when hunting was not necessary and we would have standing militias in every state.
So there's a lot more to it if we recall the times, which we need to do.... It's sort of like the Jewish religious admonition not to eat pork, when at the time it was a very foul product indeed. Now that its avoidance is not necessary for health reasons, that admonition has become essentially only a tradition. Also recall the times when the founding fathers were all wealthy landowners, many of whom were very dependent on slavery, a practice which, for 70 years, led to no chief executive willing to make a committment to human rights for them. So was slavery their intent, which we should still uphold? Well, that's debatable.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ well, in the state of New York there have been several well publicized cases where criminals attempted to rob / threaten homeowners ... resulting in the criminals being injured by the homeowners and thus apprehended ... resulting in lawsuits against the homeowners by the criminals ... resulting in juries awarding greater amounts in 'damages' to the criminal than if the homeowner had simply let the criminal rob them in the first place !
Lawsuits like this are mostly a myth. Yes, there have been a few where criminals got shot or injured by homeowners defending themselves and their property. And yes, a few resulted in jury awards to the criminals almost all of which were overturned on appeal.
However, there have been a greater number of suits against cities and municalities for the actions of their police usually based on unarmed criminals getting shot. Most are dismissed. Some are settled and go to trial and a few result in jury awards.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flickad
^
Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect property? Nice to know they have their priorities straight.
What's wrong with that ? What are Texans supposed to do ? Just hand over their property and say : " Thanks for coming. Have a nice day. " ?
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
What's wrong with that ? What are Texans supposed to do ? Just hand over their property and say : " Thanks for coming. Have a nice day. " ?
So if I want to shoot someone for stealing my pumpkin jack-o-lantern which I paid $3 and two hours carving out, this would be OK? They shoot horse thieves, don't they? If I were going to shoot someone, it wouldnt be over anything petty. Now if they were going to steal my 1975 Matador, that would be another story! :)
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
What's wrong with that ? What are Texans supposed to do ? Just hand over their property and say : " Thanks for coming. Have a nice day. " ?
Well, maybe some harsh language would work.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
What's wrong with that ? What are Texans supposed to do ? Just hand over their property and say : " Thanks for coming. Have a nice day. " ?
Of course not, but it seems quite disproportionate to shoot someone for stealing. It's like a de-facto death penalty for theft, which is all kinds of wrong.
The sensible response to a burglary, to me, would seem to be calling the police.
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
threlayer
So if I want to shoot someone for stealing my pumpkin jack-o-lantern which I paid $3 and two hours carving out, this would be OK? They shoot horse thieves, don't they? If I were going to shoot someone, it wouldnt be over anything petty. Now if they were going to steal my 1975 Matador, that would be another story! :)
Jeez, if only I'd lived in Texas, it would have been just fine and dandy for me to stab my brother to stop him eating my Lean Cuisines ::) .
-
Re: You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flickad
Of course not, but it seems quite disproportionate to shoot someone for stealing. It's like a de-facto death penalty for theft, which is all kinds of wrong.
The sensible response to a burglary, to me, would seem to be calling the police.
Yeah and while you're waitng for them to finish their coffee and doughnuts and come on over; what are you supposed to do ? I'm not advocating shooting an unarmed burglar but I'd certainly hold one at gunpoint until the cops got there and if he was armed; I'd make sure to shoot first.