|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 29, 2022 9:31:12 GMT -6
Good thing the criminals were not aware of their second amendment rights, and that the victims were not. A gunfight in the flea market would have been instructive on Constitutional Law.
I'm not sure about the screwdriver man, they say a man with a knife who is up close has better than even chances against a gun, probably would have needed to upgrade to a knife in that one. Not in favor of Constitutional Carry? It's OK for me... and maybe for you...I am not too sure about trusting myself sometimes. So I'm happy to offer a thought on that.
The legal arguments which led to this are suspect and unfortunate in my mind. Early America where farming was the occupation of 96% of the citizenry often on a frontier, guns were tools for hunting, pest control, and for defense of your home or community in the absence of law enforcement or military.
I do see a case for right to defend home and hearth, so there is some case for limited rights there. NOT for every homeowner, for example those to whom red flag laws are intended. (mental illness, domestic disputes and other reasons). But even in the clear cases where it's defensible to own a gun for defense, I question the need there for weapons designed for high rate of fire and long range.
Given the number of shootings by police under stress where mistakes are made by relatively well trained shooters, almost always restrained by concern for the public, the idea is suspect that poorly trained shooters can be effective even when justified to use deadly force. Using a weapon as a threat to end a dispute runs a substantial risk of escalation of a confrontation, or a wrongdoer leaving to get more firepower and returning...
We've seen decades of arguments that all we have to do is enforce existing laws to prevent problems, and now we are throwing out those laws. Growing up in an America where hunting was the main reason for an urban homeowner to have a gun, I was and am a hunter and was an NRA member. Remember when that group was about gun safety?
Like most law enforcement, or lawyers in the justice system, or bartenders who have seen fights break out, for that matter, I have seen too many yahoos who are borderline nuts, drunk, or just have poor impulse control who definitely should not have guns of any kind at hand. Certainly not in public...
The weapons that concern me most are are those I used in US Army duty where I was trained and used them in combat and in police and security duty. I question open carry and use by the public in the flea market...or for most cases by most people in home defense.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 29, 2022 10:07:31 GMT -6
1. It's OK for me...
2. Early America where farming was the occupation of 96% of the citizenry often on a frontier, guns were tools for hunting, pest control, and for defense of your home or community in the absence of law enforcement or military.
3. I do see a case for right to defend home and hearth, so there is some case for limited rights there. NOT for every homeowner, for example those to whom red flag laws are intended. (mental illness, domestic disputes and other reasons). 4. But even in the clear cases where it's defensible to own a gun for defense, I question the need there for weapons designed for high rate of fire and long range.
5. Using a weapon as a threat to end a dispute runs a substantial risk of escalation of a confrontation, or a wrongdoer leaving to get more firepower and returning...
6. Growing up in an America where hunting was the main reason for an urban homeowner to have a gun, I was and am a hunter and was an NRA member. Remember when that group was about gun safety?
7. Like most law enforcement, or lawyers in the justice system, or bartenders who have seen fights break out, for that matter, I have seen too many yahoos who are borderline nuts, drunk, or just have poor impulse control who definitely should not have guns of any kind at hand. Certainly not in public...
1. Says who? Same argument can be made by anyone who thinks they're a "proper person". 2. Given the length of time it takes for cops to show up, I think there's a strong argument for gun ownership for home defense. 3. Again, says who? You're asking for the rights of a citizen to be taken away based on what "might" happen. This isn't Minority Report, where we can see the future. Even in that movie, it turned out that it wasn't foolproof. 4. For home defense, anyone knowledgeable of close quarters tactics would use something like a revolver, semi-auto handgun, or shotgun. More on this in a moment. 5. Or getting your ass kicked immediately? That's a better option? 6. The NRA is still largely about gun safety. Look at their website and you'll find a trove of info about gun safety. They've been vilified in the media because they've had the audacity to actually push back against laws that violate the second amendment. 7. So the solution is to take away all guns from private citizens? Not sure what your argument is here. Regardless, aside from the constitutional issue, that would mean that the only people without guns are the law-abiding citizens. Criminals could, and would, still be able to get them to commit all sorts of crimes. 4A. An argument could be made that the second amendment has nothing to do with personal safety or home defense. There is nothing in the text that spells it out. However, the text clearly states the importance of the militia, which includes anyone physically able, over a certain age, which today I would assume to be over 18. Currently, that means women too. The idea was that, as a new nation, we may have to fight to keep it safe from invaders. That means every member of the militia would be expected to maintain a firearm (or firearms), as advanced as current technology allows, including fully automatic rifles (which is a misnomer, since they don't fire by themselves, but you know what I mean). Making sure that the people are equipped to support homeland defense is the crux of the amendment. BUUUUUUUUUT... The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" covers a LOT of territory. Intentionally so.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 29, 2022 10:56:52 GMT -6
That language about a well regulated militia has been discarded by the Court, and they have used questionable historical reasoning in a string of decisions based on so called "original intent." Not being infringed is simply not an absolute if there is a requirement of use being well regulated.
I agree completely that the language was important to the founders. A militia was the national defense force needed. Different time and the need for a militia disappeared with national military planning. I can defend the "home defense" and "personal defense" component argued for in the 2nd amendment which is not in the text, as common law. BUT I cannot defend an unregulated component. There is "common sense" to and history backing gun rights being limited. That common sense in that day reflected a much different reality, different weapons and different threats.
You do NOT need constitutional carry to have that militia rationale met. in any case. That carry principle is one that was not part of the original society. You do not need military weaponry in a bar, or on the street, or in church, Or, to defend the home. If we do need a militia what would well regulated mean? Requiring the militia members to lock up weapons (if they are kept at home) seems well regulated and reasonable to me, as well as requirement of military training and limited use of the weaponry in public setting.
Nobody says take away all guns. I do say there should be limits on high rate of fire, long range weaponry for home defense and personal defense. For decades the NRA and others supported gun laws on the books, which are now being struck down on the reasoning you are offering. During times when many fewer highly dangerous guns were common.
I don't get the argument that we should ignore what might happen when mentally disturbed or emotionally stressed people are asked to give up carrying weapons under limited circumstances. The might happen is pretty serious. There are due process protections in the red flag laws,
You may as well argue we don't need laws on drunk driving...it's only based on what "might happen."
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 29, 2022 13:11:11 GMT -6
You may as well argue we don't need laws on drunk driving...it's only based on what "might happen." Well, if you're going to bring it up... You're just as likely to have an accident if you're overly tired, as someone who is hitting .08 BAC. Yet one is a crime, the other is not.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 29, 2022 16:07:51 GMT -6
You may as well argue we don't need laws on drunk driving...it's only based on what "might happen." Well, if you're going to bring it up... You're just as likely to have an accident if you're overly tired, as someone who is hitting .08 BAC. Yet one is a crime, the other is not. Seriously? I'm good with catching the ones where we can have an objective test. Your argument is we should permit some accident prone driving and not stop it? Because we cannot identify all accident prone driving, we should stop none?
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 4, 2022 19:28:15 GMT -6
Keep this shit out of here
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 12, 2023 13:46:13 GMT -6
This thread neglected lately. We can only hope for something like the guy hanging upside down from his balcony or the master criminals we have seen in the past.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Nov 6, 2023 7:05:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Nov 6, 2023 7:15:22 GMT -6
Well, you know, it's Friday. Just trying to score some cred with the Homeys for the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Nov 6, 2023 7:18:26 GMT -6
Importing stupidity from around the world to augment our already plentiful native stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 6, 2023 7:39:30 GMT -6
Are we adopting this woman as Muncie's own?
Has our home grown failed criminal activity dropped to such a low ebb?
Has population decline meant our rats are leaving a sinking ship?
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 6, 2023 9:32:34 GMT -6
Terrorists trying to take out hate groups?
Cool.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 6, 2023 10:08:18 GMT -6
Terrorists trying to take out hate groups? Cool. We don't really need more poorly prepared terrorists, next one will be better armed and shoot up the neighborhood as well as the "target." .
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Nov 6, 2023 11:11:17 GMT -6
crashing your car into your enemy's building has a lot of disadvantages as a terrorist plot.
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Nov 27, 2023 22:55:22 GMT -6
|
|