Hero Defends Shop With Unregistered Gun

The point is you have a natural right to defend yourself, you don't have a natural right to steal from somebody else. The government has simply enacted a barrier for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals thus encroaching on their natural rights.

He has a natural right to defend himself? I think he has a right to defend himself legally. Can he have a bazooka in his shop, or a nuclear missile? If not, why not, going by your logic. As silly as this is, it is following your logic.

THERE ARE GUN LAWS FOR A REASON SIR. Criminals will be criminals. Period.

Again, this is some weird juxtaposition imho. He should be thanked. I wish what he did was legal (if this turns out to be illegal) but he should be prosecuted and hopefully he gets a slap on the wrist.

Agree?

Yes, he has a natural right to defend himself. So you're saying he only has the right to defend himself if the government has given him permission to defend himself? Because that's what gun registration amounts to.

A bazooka or a nuclear missile aren't economical and would likely violate rights of others in the vicinity.
Criminals will be criminals, that we agree with. Why do we want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals?

That is a cop out. Your logic says he CAN or should be able to have a bazooka or nuclear missile....(how is it they are violating the rights of others in the vicinity and a fully automatic AR15 isn't?..if there is a such thing)

Your logic says he can have ANY gun he wants because its wrong for the government to stop him from defending himself. Where does it end? Can he have a fully armed tank in his back yard? Why not?

Criminals will break the law and do what they want, civilized responsible gun owners will obey the law in their state and get armed legally, so when a shooting occurs, there is no question as to the legality of his weapon.

Agree?
 
He has a natural right to defend himself? I think he has a right to defend himself legally. Can he have a bazooka in his shop, or a nuclear missile? If not, why not, going by your logic. As silly as this is, it is following your logic.

THERE ARE GUN LAWS FOR A REASON SIR. Criminals will be criminals. Period.

Again, this is some weird juxtaposition imho. He should be thanked. I wish what he did was legal (if this turns out to be illegal) but he should be prosecuted and hopefully he gets a slap on the wrist.

Agree?

Yes, he has a natural right to defend himself. So you're saying he only has the right to defend himself if the government has given him permission to defend himself? Because that's what gun registration amounts to.

A bazooka or a nuclear missile aren't economical and would likely violate rights of others in the vicinity.
Criminals will be criminals, that we agree with. Why do we want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals?

That is a cop out. Your logic says he CAN or should be able to have a bazooka or nuclear missile....(how is it they are violating the rights of others in the vicinity and a fully automatic AR15 isn't?..if there is a such thing)

Your logic says he can have ANY gun he wants because its wrong for the government to stop him from defending himself. Where does it end? Can he have a fully armed tank in his back yard? Why not?

Criminals will break the law and do what they want, civilized responsible gun owners will obey the law in their state and get armed legally, so when a shooting occurs, there is no question as to the legality of his weapon.

Agree?

The point is that the government doesn't have the right to mandate that people must get their permission to arm themselves as it goes against the natural right of self-defense. I can't make this any clearer for you.
 
Personally speaking, I believe that is the way it should be. I don't like gun laws. Just because I understand the state has a right to restrict per the Constitution, that doesn't mean I personally approve of it. My comments are from a legal perspective.

If people don't want their state to restrict gun ownership and rights within the state, they need to start kicking some politician butt. Work on amending the respective state constitutions. Technically speaking, that is how the Constitution was set up. And that is how I am debating.
Eh, now I'm a bit confused. Do you believe a convicted felon should have his rights restored once he's paid his debt to society?

Yes, I do. That has always been my position. Let me see if I can clear the cloudy screen skies for you Emma. :)

1) On a personal level, I don't believe in gun registration, carry permits, and all that other gun control crap.

2) From the perspective of the Constitution of the United States, I recognize that the II Amendment was written to restrict the federal government not the individual states. The states are free to place restrictions. While I recognize and articulate that fact, that does not mean that I am advocating that position on a personal level.

3) Since the individual states are free to pass laws that restrict, the employers of the individual states also have the power to amend their laws so as to repeal the government gun control laws. It is incumbent upon them to do all they can to that end.

From the beginning, my posts in this thread have been from the legal perspective of the Constitution of the United States.
Ah ok. Must have been someone else who argued against me on that point then.
 
And that would be making law that infringes upon a recognized right as stated in the Constitution itself. The Law itself should reflect the denial of LIFE, Liberty, Property by another citizen, upon a citizen.

The mere act of carrying a firearm is not a violation of the Constitution, and in that it is guaranteed, period. Any State law that denies this right, is in violation in my view (As long as they are NOT a convicted felon, who HAS shown the propensity to DENY another citizen of their natural rights of LIFE, Liberty, Property, as recognized in the Constitution, And the Declaration of Independence).

In short? I agree with YOU.

I'm not sure if an individual can actually fall foul of the US Constitution, although I know I have a very poor understanding of it so I'm probably being somewhat presumptuous in stating that ... there are no "natural rights". :eusa_angel:

Well you can be sure now, as the US Constitution is founded directly upon the certainty that the only rights are those in nature; those endowed by nature's God and as such it was written for no other purpose than to protect the natural rights of the individual from being usurped by the State.

Now we're prepared to destroy you if you insist on challenging that...

We've come to find that tolerating such 'beliefs' is detrimental to our means to hold our beliefs and we're growing rather tired of it.

Now before ya start blowing smoke... lets take a moment to remind you that Australia's citizenry us disarmed... and if RHODE ISLAND suddenly become determined to conquer Australia, you idiots would be helpless to do a damn thing to stop them.

There are no "natural rights", it is a fiction. Just as it is a fiction that Australians are "disarmed" - see we fooled those sneaky Rhode Islanders, when they come down here.....:D
 
Didn't you tell me that you disagreed with me that once someone convicted of a felony had served their time (and probation/parole) they should have their 2nd Amendment right restored?

Personally speaking, I believe that is the way it should be. I don't like gun laws. Just because I understand the state has a right to restrict per the Constitution, that doesn't mean I personally approve of it. My comments are from a legal perspective.

If people don't want their state to restrict gun ownership and rights within the state, they need to start kicking some politician butt. Work on amending the respective state constitutions. Technically speaking, that is how the Constitution was set up. And that is how I am debating.
Eh, now I'm a bit confused. Do you believe a convicted felon should have his rights restored once he's paid his debt to society?

It wasnt me arguing with you (from below), but if you are implying that they shouldn't then why does EVERY person in the public eye (sports, entertainment etc) get theirs back?
 
Personally speaking, I believe that is the way it should be. I don't like gun laws. Just because I understand the state has a right to restrict per the Constitution, that doesn't mean I personally approve of it. My comments are from a legal perspective.

If people don't want their state to restrict gun ownership and rights within the state, they need to start kicking some politician butt. Work on amending the respective state constitutions. Technically speaking, that is how the Constitution was set up. And that is how I am debating.
Eh, now I'm a bit confused. Do you believe a convicted felon should have his rights restored once he's paid his debt to society?

It wasnt me arguing with you (from below), but if you are implying that they shouldn't then why does EVERY person in the public eye (sports, entertainment etc) get theirs back?
I was probably not clear in the quote above. I think they SHOULD have their rights restored after they've paid their debt to society (to include any probation/parole time).
 

Forum List

Back
Top