Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 4:55:50 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

But it's augmenting the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, isn't it?

A Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.
B When the protected rights go so do those.
C When government can give you anything you want, it can take anything you have
Thomas Jefferson



A) Yes, I know, I looked it up.
B) The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is far more basic and important than the right to carry a gun. Please tell me that you're not arguing with that. that's presumably why it was conveyed even before the Constitution was put together.
C) No relevance that I can see. You'll need to explain - with reference to the demand to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', rather than the much less important issue of ownership of guns, if at all possible.

OK
How about this from Franklin
He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.
See my explanation of the Constitution as a contract.
If you start violating the contract because it seemed like a good idea at the
time the whole thing falls apart.
You seem to think there is a hierarchy of rights. When you demolish one you
undermine them all.
Life the ability to defend myself
Liberty the freedom to conduct my own affairs without government
interference.
Pursuit of happiness to follow your own goals.
While you don't look at it that way my right to bear arms
has protected in particular the right of life.
And before you say it he had a knife and was less than half my age.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 5:05:59 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 5:17:55 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.

The people who don't want to get shot includes every.
I have never met anyone who wants to get shot.
And you have been given a false impression of people who carry.
We don't run around looking for someone to shoot.
Not one case where we have disagreed was that the first
resort of the man with the gun.
I have on at least four occasions avoided violence because I
was carrying.
Even anti gun nut that he is Bloomberg admits to a quarter million
legitimate defensive firearms uses a year.
I will not go into the other studies all of which show defensive firearm usage
much higher as that confused some people on here the last time I brought
it up.
Now clearly the vast majority of these ended with no one being killed
or even injured, that is the end to which guns are a means.


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 5:27:32 PM   
igor2003


Posts: 1718
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.


I'm not going to get caught up in this whole discussion, but I would like for you to answer a question for me.

How does your right to feel safe from possibly being accidentally shot (actually an extremely low probability) trump the right of someone else to feel safe by having the means for self protection from assailants? Whose right is more important?

I haven't looked for any statistics, but my own guess is that pretty much anywhere in the USA people are much more likely to be seriously injured by armed or unarmed assailants than for a bystander to be accidentally shot by someone defending his or her self with a firearm.

_____________________________

If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy. - Red Green

At my age erections are like cops...there's never one around when you need it!

Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 5:35:14 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.

You have also been misinformed about SYG they never tell you that all of them include
the phrase "a reasonable person" when referring to fear of injury or death, this is very important.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 5:38:22 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.


I'm not going to get caught up in this whole discussion, but I would like for you to answer a question for me.

How does your right to feel safe from possibly being accidentally shot (actually an extremely low probability) trump the right of someone else to feel safe by having the means for self protection from assailants? Whose right is more important?

I haven't looked for any statistics, but my own guess is that pretty much anywhere in the USA people are much more likely to be seriously injured by armed or unarmed assailants than for a bystander to be accidentally shot by someone defending his or her self with a firearm.

Particularly since most assailants try to catch their victims alone.


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to igor2003)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 8:44:59 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

But it's augmenting the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, isn't it?


No.

How can removing the right to bear a gun possibly be construed as increasing liberty?

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 8:52:23 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.


I don't think *you're* getting this.

"life liberty & pursuit of happiness" is the declaration of independence. It has nothing to do with the US constitution, except that the philosophy of the two documents are much the same.

However, it is the constitution and not the DoI that sets up the rules for american governance.

Even if there were no second amendment, gun rights would be protected (although less so) because any powers not given to the federal government are strictly reserved to the states or the people.

But that protection wasn't viewed as strong enough. So the second amendment was codified EXPLICITY protecting the right to bear arms.

So, to return to your point. The right to bear arms is constituionally guaranteed. This constitutionally enshrined right is codified into law.

It trumps any feelings you might have of life, liberty pursuit of happiness.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 9:19:57 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.


Maybe this will help you understand why some feel the need to protect themselves.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014303260024

I'm not sure why you seem to focus on the fuckwits like zimmy and ignore the ones like this.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/6/2014 9:42:10 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.


Maybe this will help you understand why some feel the need to protect themselves.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014303260024

I'm not sure why you seem to focus on the fuckwits like zimmy and ignore the ones like this.

Because they believe that all gun owners are "fuckwits".

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/7/2014 12:30:12 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.


Maybe this will help you understand why some feel the need to protect themselves.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014303260024

I'm not sure why you seem to focus on the fuckwits like zimmy and ignore the ones like this.


Last I checked, armed vigilantism is OUTLAWED within the United States of America. I believe that's his point. Mr. Zimmerman did a huge number of bad pieces of judgement that led to the death of another person. Mr. Dunn shot up an SUV full of teenagers. In both cases, the individual display a complete lack of intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom when handling a firearm. No one should have to live with the fear of being shot at by someone that is 'taking the law into their own hands' because they distrust or hate the government.

There are examples in which a person defended themselves or others with a firearm. And those people were usually scared shitless at the time....BUT....kept their head about them. Unlike that one firearm owner that shot a kid that was invited into the house by the firearm owner's daughter. Or the guy that left the security of his dwelling to confront a possible intruder outside, in the open, at night, without a flashlight; and kills an old guy that needed some serious help from a friendly person. Yeah, Zimmerman and that guy could afford firearms and not flashlights? They could afford working bullets but not batteries? How often does one use a flashlight compared to a firearm around the house?

An there are examples in which people have defended themselves in a situation in which a firearm would have either done nothing or created more problems. A firearm is not a magical item that instantly resolves all problems for the one holding it. That silly belief has placed a number of good people behind bars with lengthy sentences. There is one example of a woman that felt she was being threaten with serious harm/death by an ex-husband (if memory serves). She discharged the weapon into the ceiling/floor (cant remember which), but kept the other person from attacking here. She's now serving a criminal sentence. From what I read of the case, I felt she acted in the best interests to resolve an already bad situation as peacefully as possible without injury to herself or the other person.

That is why these matters have to go to a court to handle properly. And the court is not always going to hand the verdict you or I want in a particular case. But there are clear laws that state all manner of subject material as it relates to firearms in each of the states. Some are strict and others are lenient. So it comes down to, how does society (i.e. local, state, federal groups of people, not necessarily limited to government), deal with firearms at the individual level? Not an easy question to answer.....

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/7/2014 12:45:35 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither.


Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured.

I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'.

I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see.

I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*.


Maybe this will help you understand why some feel the need to protect themselves.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014303260024

I'm not sure why you seem to focus on the fuckwits like zimmy and ignore the ones like this.

Because they believe that all gun owners are "fuckwits".


Most gun owners (like their counter parts, concerned citizens) are pretty ok people in my book. We might differ on politics here and there. But at the end of the day, we want good things for the nation both now and in the future. Its the gun nuts, that undermine gun owners across the nation. Everyone that is a gun nut wants to be associated with gun owners. Don't know a single gun owner that wants to be associated (even remotely) to a gun nut. Gun nuts, like their counter parts, gun controllers, serve to undermine the 2nd amendment.

Were as gun owners and their counter parts, concerned citizens must do all they can to keep the power in their area of influence. When gun owners and concerned citizens get together, work out problems, remain fair and honest with each other; is when the best laws for firearms emerge. Its when these two groups unwittingly allow gun nuts and controllers into those conversations, that things go south. Gun nuts and controllers know how to push the buttons of their respective groups, while trying to undermine the actions and 'good faith' of the 'sane' opposites (i.e. gun owners and concerned citizens).

I understand, that a firearm, in the possession, of someone that acts to protect themselves and others only when the need arises, rather than as an excuse. That firearms can be fun to operate (in a safe manner of course); they should never be used to push a political agenda as an underlying threat.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law - 4/7/2014 12:50:52 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Holy shit.

Hell froze over.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 53
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: High Court Bolsters Domestic Violence Gun Ban Law Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094