[manta]

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.

 

[Ghost1958]

Legally.

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.

 

[G66enigma]

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.

Great example.

Another one: Seeing someone fumbling with one's mail at the mailbox outside. Heading outside, yelling at the perp to knock it off and head elsewhere ... only to be turned on by the perp. Most folks who won't engage their brains on this type of thing imagine it's "about the mail" and "a death sentence for pieces of mail" isn't justifiable. But, it ain't about the mail. It's about thwarting the violent escalation and putting it down before damage to the innocent occurs, same as any other crime of actual or imminent violence of the sort.

As with your medicines. It ain't about "pills." It's about the threat of death if a few hours without them is forced upon you.

Same with a lawnmower or stack of tools in the shed, or a bicycle out at the side of the house. Confronting someone caught in the act is currently justifiable; as is lawful response to any additional crime of violence attempted by a perp who feels offended at having been caught and commanded to halt. Ain't about the "stuff." It's about the threat to life when demanding the perp halts when it's clear the perp seeks an additional crime of violence tacked on the list.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[manta]

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.

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.

 

[Ghost1958]

No

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.

. 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.

 

[manta]

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.

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.

But carrying a gun, protecting life, and property are rights no gov has the moral or constitutional authority to regulate.

Like it or not it does have the authority to regulate, and does regulate.

 

[Ghost1958]

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.

So? Its obvious without saying why there is more violent crime in Texas. And the proprrty crime rate also.

If the right to protect property using lethal force there it would be much higher.

No im afraid wheather you like it or not they dont have the authority.

That they do unconstitutionally do so at the point of a gun , does not in anyway give them the constitutional authority to do so. It simply means gov pays mercenaries who are willing to violate the constition and enforce illegal laws.

 

[manta]

No im afraid wheather you like it or not they dont have the authority.

People can make that argument in court, and see how they get on.

It simply means gov pays mercenaries who are willing to violate the constition and enforce illegal laws.

Who decides what laws are constitutional or not, you.

 

[Ghost1958]

People can make that argument in court, and see how they get on.



Who decides what laws are constitutional or not, you.

It was written to be understood by the common person


Seperate it from all the legalese hot air , precedents , traditions , and fabrications and its very easy to understand what it says.
The only folks that claim it is hard to understand and needs " interpreting " are the folks who hate what it says.

Nowhere not even justice Marshall who opened the can of worms , suggested " interpreting the COTUS . Its meaning and language are clear. He wrote that the LAWS must be interpreted to judge if they met constitional muster. Paraphrasing a bit.
Noone need " interpret the COTUS. nor were ever intended too. The proposed laws are what were meant to be interpreted and judged to see if they adhered to constitutional limits.

The interpreting and changing the meaning of the constitution from what it actually states is a tool of the socialists to weaken constitutional protections and are committing treason when they do so.

 

[Chainfire]

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.

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.

 

[Chainfire]

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.

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.

 

[Ghost1958]

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.

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.

 

[Chainfire]

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.

You don't get to decide what is constitutional. Sorry Dude, it's a hard knock life.

 

[Ghost1958]

You don't get to decide what is constitutional. Sorry Dude, it's a hard knock life.

Niether do you.
Well actually both of us do.
For ourselves and then live accordingly.

But now that most of thr courts have been purged of traitors,much should change ovef the next 5 yrs

 

[Ghost1958]

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.

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.

I dont expect that to happen where i live though.

 

[Pasquanel]

For me this is simple the Bundys were not convicted of anything therefore they aren't felons.

Come and steal from me and I catch you in the act you have two options #1 is not good for you #2 is your best bet. #1= resistance on your part, #2 = hands behind your head.

Would I shoot? Only one way to find out. But it matters not what you are trying to steal it's the very act that sorely offends me!

 

[Pasquanel]

Did you earn it? Was it a gift If not it's not yours.

 

[austin92]

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.

 

[G66enigma]

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.

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.

For me, the minor crime isn't the point; but the threat to the lives of innocents is. Threaten the innocent, and you're now committing another, second crime that has zero to do with the first. And it's against that, the threat of the damage from that that everyone has justifiable authority to stand against. Nobody's legally forced in the U.S. to take one for the Gipper, when a criminal feigns offendedness to then turn upon a person violently. Commit that second crime ... well, you get what you get.

 

[alsaqr]

When it comes to the use of deadly force things can go to hades in a handbasket really quick. Shooting someone who is running away with your stuff is almost guaranteed to get you charged in nearly every state in this country.

Nine years ago Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland got life in prison over his killing of a robber.

Two young cretins, one armed with a firearm, attempted to rob Ersland's pharmacy. Ersland shot the unarmed robber and chased the armed robber from the store, shooting at same. Ersland returned to the store and proceeded to finish off the incapacitated unarmed robber, shooting him five times: Wrong answer!!!

Ersland may have been able to skate but he lied to the police. Publicity hound Ersland also recounted his heroic tale on TV.

It was all caught on the store camera. Four people were found guilty of murder; Ersland, the two career criminal advisors to the teenage thugs and the surviving robber.

Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber (nbcnews.com)