Joined
·
7,279 Posts
Legally.Able to shoot people now if any of us just wanted to shoot folks. People do it quite regularly just because they want too.
Legally.Able to shoot people now if any of us just wanted to shoot folks. People do it quite regularly just because they want too.
Legally has nothing to do with squat except cleanup.Legally.
Great example.I'm going to give an example here.
My MIL is on life maintaining medication (which is regulated as to when and how often it can be refilled). Going without it is life threatening for her. If a thief was in the act of stealing her medication (worth less than a lawn mower) would that in your mind justify the use of deadly force to protect her medication and potentially her life?
See for me the value of whatever is in question is relative and only really understood by the owner. What really is at stake is what is acceptable behavior. Am I suggesting the death penalty for theft; no; but in the heat of a crime you are subject to any and all means to prevent the crime. It is the chance you take being a criminal. And honestly, seems appropriate to me.
So don't ban anyone from doing anything because they will just do it anyway, banning a abuser from seeing the person they abused for example, just tell them to fill their boots.Legally has nothing to do with squat except cleanup.
If a person is actually determined to shoot someone they will.
Kind of like banning free felons from owning guns when everyone knows they arm themselves in a week of release.
Way to many regulations comcerning the right to self defense and to protect their property now that put the honest armed citizen at a disadvantage to the criminal. This bill would be a small step in the right direction.
. Some things need to be illegal. Abusers are directly harming another. Though protective orders seldom work and the abused winds up dead anyway.So don't ban anyone from doing anything because they will just do it anyway, banning a abuser from seeing the person they abused for example, just tell them to fill their boots.
Yes people do shoot people illegally, you want them to be able to do it legally, for petty theft etc. I would hate to live in a country with your idea of law and order, be able to shoot anyone for anything, seems to sum it up.
Yeah, its working well in Texas.How did the theif get into a position to be shot?? He made a concious decision to steal.
As was. Pointed out Texas has had this for decades. And it works well.
Like it or not it does have the authority to regulate, and does regulate.But carrying a gun, protecting life, and property are rights no gov has the moral or constitutional authority to regulate.
So? Its obvious without saying why there is more violent crime in Texas. And the proprrty crime rate also.Yeah, its working well in Texas.
The violent crime rate in Texas is 4.1 incidents per 1,000, compared to 3.7 nationwide and 4.4 reported last year. The state's property crime rate is 23.7, which is nearly two incidents higher than the national rate of 22.0.
Like it or not it does have the authority to regulate, and does regulate.
People can make that argument in court, and see how they get on.No im afraid wheather you like it or not they dont have the authority.
Who decides what laws are constitutional or not, you.It simply means gov pays mercenaries who are willing to violate the constition and enforce illegal laws.
It was written to be understood by the common personPeople can make that argument in court, and see how they get on.
Who decides what laws are constitutional or not, you.
The firearm law is not intended to keep a felon from acquiring a weapon, but if caught with it it puts him or her away again. I would have thought you understood that.Legally has nothing to do with squat except cleanup.
If a person is actually determined to shoot someone they will.
Kind of like banning free felons from owning guns when everyone knows they arm themselves in a week of release.
Way to many regulations comcerning the right to self defense and to protect their property now that put the honest armed citizen at a disadvantage to the criminal. This bill would be a small step in the right direction.
But you see, it really doesn't matter if YOU think that the government doesn't have the right to regulate firearms. We do not endow you with that power. The fact is that our government does regulate firearms and as long as the courts say it is legal, it is legal. Our prisons are full of people who don't believe that a particular law is valid, constitutional or that it applies to them. If we need to, we can build more.No
. Some things need to be illegal. Abusers are directly harming another. Though protective orders seldom work and the abused winds up dead anyway.
But carrying a gun, protecting life, and property are rights no gov has the moral or constitutional authority to regulate.
How did the theif get into a position to be shot?? He made a concious decision to steal.
As was. Pointed out Texas has had this for decades. And it works well.
As far as the country you live in if you do not like freedom or the efforts of those here to push gov out of our personal lives and our rights then dont move here.
Oh i understand the excuse that was used to pass it. Which was to " keep guns from dangerous criminals."The firearm law is not intended to keep a felon from acquiring a weapon, but if caught with it it puts him or her away again. I would have thought you understood that.
You don't get to decide what is constitutional. Sorry Dude, it's a hard knock life.Oh i understand the excuse that was used to pass it. Which was to " keep guns from dangerous criminals."
Then when that didnt work the excuse was changed to what you just quoted. Which fine
Except 1. Few are ever caught.
2 . Fewer are actually arrested and charged because SOME LE do take their oath seriuosly.
3. If they do get " put away again" its usually for a matter of months to possibly a yr.
That law and the NFA in general are infringrment for infringement sake as they do little to nothing except let lib politicians have a bone to throw the snowflakes.
Doesnt matter if it worked 100%.
The constitution plainly states gov is not to interefere with the RTKABA.
Niether do you.You don't get to decide what is constitutional. Sorry Dude, it's a hard knock life.
If im ever faced by gov mercenaries for exercising my constitutional rights you wont need to build one of those cells. I wont be coming to take residence.But you see, it really doesn't matter if YOU think that the government doesn't have the right to regulate firearms. We do not endow you with that power. The fact is that our government does regulate firearms and as long as the courts say it is legal, it is legal. Our prisons are full of people who don't believe that a particular law is valid, constitutional or that it applies to them. If we need to, we can build more.
A good example of the distinction is in the news, in the past couple of days. (Can't seem to find the article.) Someone caught a burglar at the home ... then proceeded to chase that burglar out of the house, ending up shooting the guy. He's now charged with the crime of that battery, his person being no longer threatened by the person who'd ran away.If caught in the act and you react with anger or violence, yes, I would most likely apply pressure to the bang switch. If I came home and found something missing I wouldn’t hunt anyone down. This is a good law to protect people in self defense shootings that some crack head thought was only going to be theft but then turned aggressive when the owner shows up unexpectedly.