M
MikeInVA
Guest
That’s a pretty big assumption.
I’m not sure if a basement-dwelling zombie is really the model of responsible citizenship our children should be aspiring to.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Armed pro-Trump protesters gather outside Michigan elections chief's home
- Thread starter Motherwit
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is an opinion, just like your “hate to imaging” is an opinion and not a “pretty big assumption.” Use the Golden Rule.That’s a pretty big assumption.
Funny.Sorry they need more of a reason
I see what you did there.
They have to have a reason, that they can is not good enough…but you don’t need a reason to demand a reason.
So from October 1st to November 30th…?Stephen Paddock was a law-abiding person for 64 years up to November 30th 2017.
October 1st 2017, he was no longer a law-abiding person.
Your times overlap. You may want to correct that.
It is confusing.
R
RootKitWarrior
Guest
Just change November 30th to September 30th.So from October 1st to November 30th…?
Your times overlap. You may want to correct that.
It is confusing.
Blonde moment
Source, where the NRA has said this.Thank the NRA for this myth that any regulation is some sort of Constitutional crisis.
Start with the words individual right to keep and bear, not merely own.I am all for responsible ownership, with the key word being “responsible.”
Define confrontational protests. Or better, who gets to decide that?Guns simply do not belong in some situations. Confrontational protests is one of them.
Who gets to decide?This could be treated as a limit on right to assembly as well, which also is not absolute.
Americans have limits as well. Let’s remember that it isn’t the law abiding who are involved in most gun crime. It is people who illegally own or use illegal arms.Even police have strict regulations concerning carrying a firearm, which is why drinking on duty is never acceptable to any degree.
Funny how that works.Stephen Paddock was a law-abiding person for 64 years up to September 30th 2017.
October 1st 2017, he was no longer a law-abiding person.
One is a law abiding citizen until one commits a crime.
The point?
P
pnewton
Guest
The limitation to assembly is a determined locally, which is why permits may be required, police may disperse a crowd for reasons of public safety, and all of this is reviewable by courts.
In this particular case the police could have dispersed this crowd for being armed, loud, unpermitted, in a residential neighborhood, following an attempt to kidnap another state official.
In this particular case the police could have dispersed this crowd for being armed, loud, unpermitted, in a residential neighborhood, following an attempt to kidnap another state official.
Absolutely. One wonders why this didn’t happen in our major cities since May.In this particular case the police could have dispersed this crowd for being armed, loud, unpermitted, in a residential neighborhood, following an attempt to kidnap another state official.
Take note that the armed protest in Virginia and, AFAIK, in Michigan were not violent. No looting, fires, etc.
R
RootKitWarrior
Guest
Gun carriers always use the “Law Abiding Citizen” rote.Funny how that works.
One is a law abiding citizen until one commits a crime.
The point?
They ignore the fact that before gun carrier committed it’s first crime with a crime, they were a “Law Abiding Citizen”
In a Premeditated Murder, the Murderer was a “Law Abiding Citizen” until the very microsecond before he committed the Crime.
That is why there should be a yearly mandatory Psych Eval done on gun owners.
More so for Law Enforcement employees.
Well, that’s an interesting accusation against roughly one hundred million Americans who buy guns legally, use them and store them properly.Gun carriers always use the “Law Abiding Citizen” rote.
They ignore the fact that before gun carrier committed it’s first crime with a crime, they were a “Law Abiding Citizen”
But, of course, since they own a gun, they must be on the verge of being criminal. After all, why else would someone want a gun?
Note: this cannot be applied to government, since government only has legitimate reasons to have firearms. (Hear that, BLM?)
Except that the premeditation is also a crime in some instances, and often they acquired the firearm illegally or had an illegal arm. This is the usual circumstance.In a Premeditated Murder, the Murderer was a “Law Abiding Citizen” until the very microsecond before he committed the Crime.
But, if we’re going to use this odd shift of logic, we could say that every taxpayer is a microsecond away from being a tax cheat. Therefore, eliminate taxes.
How about the same should apply to all journalists.That is why there should be a yearly mandatory Psych Eval done on gun owners.
All lawyers and their potential clients.
All politicians.
All voters.
Anyone who is currently a law abiding citizen who might abuse any of their constitutionally protected rights in a microsecond and become a criminal.
Last edited:
The point must be that civilians owning arms is dangerous.Funny how that works.
One is a law abiding citizen until one commits a crime.
The point?
On the other hand, governments, having murdered tens of millions of civilians over the last hundred years, should have all the guns because they aren’t dangerous.
Z
Zacc
Guest
It depends on the availability of the means to become a criminal. How much preparation is needed to become one, and how much damage they can do if they turn to become a criminal. Grabbing a handgun from your back pocket, and pepper someone with bullets is very “convenient” when emotions flare up.Anyone who is currently a law abiding citizen who might abuse any of their constitutionally protected rights in a microsecond and become a criminal.
Owning any kind of lethal weapons is dangerous not just for civilians - starting with the automobiles. That is why it is prudent to have registrations for them and periodic checks if the owner still qualifies for operating them.The point must be that civilians owning arms is dangerous.
. . . .
Last edited:
And it rarely happens with CCL holders. It rarely happens except with those who have illegal arms or have those arms illegally.It depends on the availability of the means to become a criminal. How much preparation is needed to become one, and how much damage they can do if they turn to become a criminal. Grabbing a handgun from your back pocket, and pepper someone with bullets is very “convenient” when emotions flare up.
Murders involving firearms in crimes of passion are also a small fraction of murders involving a firearm.
And yet there are over 300 million firearms legally owned by civilians, of which just a tiny few are used in crime every year. The overwhelming amount of gun crime involves illegal firearms or illegally owned arms. Asteroids crashing into earth are dangerous, too. The danger of Firearms, like automobiles, is directly related to the user.Owning any kind of lethal weapons is dangerous not just for civilians - starting with the automobiles.
I find your condescending misrepresentation of people who live in the south, of which I’m one, disgusting.Of course in the US, especially in the South there is a sentiment, which says: Ah have mah Gawd-given raaght to shoo’t mah truck if Ah want to.
That said, I’ve never heard someone say they can shoot their truck. Makes no sense. But the constitution does protect the inherent individual right to own, keep and bear arms.
It is a right antecedent to government and is not dependent on what you or anyone else thinks is an obsession. We are hearing the same kind of anti-rights rhetoric regarding speech, religious free exercise, due process, and numerous other protected rights.This obsession with weapons is ridiculous. Time to grow up.
Discouraging people to defend and exercise their individual rights is what tyrants do best.
Last edited:
So would you preemptively usurp rights on the basis that someone might do something criminal in the future?Gun carriers always use the “Law Abiding Citizen” rote.
They ignore the fact that before gun carrier committed it’s first crime with a crime, they were a “Law Abiding Citizen”
Really? Someone is required to prove their innocence before they can exercise a right?That is why there should be a yearly mandatory Psych Eval done on gun owners.
More so for Law Enforcement employees.
What happened to innocent until proven otherwise?
As to law enforcement…I could see the regular psych eval as part of their employment.
Not because they have a weapon, but because their job is that stressful.
P
pnewton
Guest
They usually are not violent, just like most trips to a bar do not end in a fight. I understand that. Nonetheless, there is an increased danger.Take note that the armed protest in Virginia and, AFAIK, in Michigan were not violent. No looting, fires, etc.
Even if one is legally able to carry a gun in a bar, on a protest, or even if one lives where there is a stand your ground rule, the responsibility of taking a human life when it was not absolutely necessary is a grave on. Even if you commit no crime, you may lose everything you own. The problem with the “fear of your life” defense, is that the victim has just as much right to it, maybe more, and the family may well win a civil cast with the lower burden of proof.
In all these instances, protests or bars, retreat should be the first option before killing.
R
RootKitWarrior
Guest
If a Psych Eval gives that indication, then yes.So would you preemptively usurp rights on the basis that someone might do something criminal in the future?
That only applies to the Courts.What happened to innocent until proven otherwise?
You go into any place that forbids firearms and there are metal and explosive detectors. You have to prove you are innocent before you can proceed. The Assumption in these cases, you are guilty until cleared (declared innocent) by the detection devices.Really? Someone is required to prove their innocence before they can exercise a right?
Police pulls you over. He orders you to perform a sobriety test and or Breath Analyzer. He presumes you are guilty before either test proves you are innocent.
The greater danger seems to have been at the riots where firearms weren’t involved. Instead, brinks, fire, etc.They usually are not violent, just like most trips to a bar do not end in a fight. I understand that. Nonetheless, there is an increased danger.
Oh, absolutely. Defense of the right is not a defense of its misuse.Even if one is legally able to carry a gun in a bar, on a protest, or even if one lives where there is a stand your ground rule, the responsibility of taking a human life when it was not absolutely necessary is a grave on.
Depends on the circumstance. For example, in one’s home, the intruder has diminished his “victim” status. But the young guy in Kenosha has discovered that one may have to defend oneself in court.The problem with the “fear of your life” defense, is that the victim has just as much right to it, maybe more, and the family may well win a civil cast with the lower burden of proof.
Particularly since progressive mayors and councils have sided with rioters and looters, and Soros loyal DAs have decided not to enforce the law.As to law enforcement…I could see the regular psych eval as part of their employment.
Not because they have a weapon, but because their job is that stressful.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.